THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL DIVISION 9), ACCRA EXPARTE: ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED ORIGIN 8 LIMITED AND GREATER ACCRA PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE [2022]DLSC11681

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL DIVISION 9), ACCRA EXPARTE: ECOBANK GHANA... [2022]DLSC11681

Date	2022-01-18
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/10/2022
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC11681

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

HONYENUGA JSC

AMADU JSC

KERVIN TETTEY ASHONG ESQ. LED BY JUSTICE KUSI-MINKAH PREMO ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.

ANDREW NII ADJEI KHARTEY FOR THE 1ST INTERESTED PARTY.

[2022]DLSC11681
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL DIVISION 9),
ACCRA<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE: ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>ORIGIN 8 LIMITED AND GREATER ACCRA
PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED PARTIES/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/10/2022&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
18TH JANUARY, 2022<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">ANDREW NII ADJEI KHARTEY FOR THE 1ST INTERESTED PARTY.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;PWAMANG JSC:-<o:p></o:p>My Lords, on the 18th January, 2022, we
unanimously granted the prayers of the applicant in this motion but reserved
the reasons. We now proceed to give our reasons for the decision. This is an
application invoking our supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court
(Commercial Division 9), Accra, in relation to its ruling declining
jurisdiction in a motion praying for the suspension of a garnishee order
absolute and stay of garnishee proceedings pending appeal.<o:p></o:p>There is pending before the High Court proceedings
of execution of its judgment for payment of money. Following the grant of
garnishee orders nisi against two banks, the court made an order absolute
against the applicant alone for payment of the whole of the judgment debt to
the judgment creditor/interested party. Being aggrieved by the order, the
applicant lodged an appeal against it in the Court of Appeal. After initially
applying to the Court of Appeal for stay of execution of the order pending the
appeal and meeting a refusal, the applicant returned to the High Court and
prayed it to suspend the order and stay the proceedings of execution pending
the determination of the appeal under its inherent jurisdiction. But counsel
for the judgment creditor took objection to the hearing of the application by
the High Court arguing, that the power of the High Court to stay execution of
its judgment or order that has been appealed against has been taken away by the
Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 2020
(C.I.132). In her ruling dated 3rd November, 2021, the judge
upheld the objection and did not hear the application on the merits but dismissed
it as incompetent. It is that decision that the applicant prays us to quash by
an order of certiorari on ground of blatant error of law apparent on the record
and further, for order of mandamus compelling the trial judge to hear and
determine the application on the merits.<o:p></o:p>In these present proceedings, the Counsel for the
applicant, Mr J Kusi-Menkah Premo, argues that the High Court judge committed a
blatant error of law by holding that she has no jurisdiction in the matter. He
submits that a court has inherent jurisdiction to stay execution or proceedings
of execution of its judgment or order even if the judgment or order has been
appealed against. This power, he contends, exists in the court so long as
execution has not been completed and it is inherent in the court. According to
him, since the court’s order absolute for the garnishee to pay the money had
not yet been carried out, the matter was pending before the court notwithstanding
the appeal lodged in the Court of Appeal so the High Court had jurisdiction to
entertain the application for stay. In answer to the contention that C.I.132 has taken away that power of
the High Court, he says that the said instrument did not take away the inherent
power of the High Court as the power is innate in the court and not dependent
on the rules of court. Relying on Ahyia
v Amoah [1987-88] 2 GLR 289, he submits that until the record of the appeal
has been transmitted to the Court of Appeal, the court below has power to hear
interlocutory applications in the case. He states that, in any event, where it
is in the interest of justice, inherent power can be exercised by a court notwithstanding
that a rule of court regulates the circumstances that necessitate its exercise.
Counsel has referred copiously to the concurring opinion of our distinguished
brother, Anin Yeboah, JSC (as he then was) in the case of Footprints Solutions Ltd v Leo &amp; Lee Company Ltd, CA. No J4/52/2011
unreported judgment delivered on 24th May, 2013. In that case, our
noble and honourable brother made reference to the scope of inherent
jurisdiction of a court after it has given judgment as explained in Acheampong v Asare-Manu [1976] 1 GLR 28 at
29where it was said that; <o:p></o:p>“…one
of such areas where the court’s inherent powers can be invoked is where
necessary to prevent injury being inflicted by its own judgment…”<o:p></o:p>Counsel has also quoted and relied on the
following statement by Benin, JSC in Republic
Vrs High Court, Accr</main>