EMOS CONSULTANCY LIMITED vs. MECHANICAL LLOYD COMPANY LIMITED [2023]DLSC16117

Date	2023-05-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/09/2023
Citation No.	[2023]DLSC16117

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC

ACKAH-YENSU (MS.) JSC

ASIEDU JSC

NANA YAW NTRAKWAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

PETER ZWENNES ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2023]DLSC16117
																																						<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" >EMOS
CONSULTANCY LIMITED&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;(PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT
CREDITOR/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>MECHANICAL LLOYD COMPANY LIMITED&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

(DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT
DEBTOR/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

CIVIL APPEAL NO.
J4/09/2023&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
DATE:
18TH MAY 2023&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>

COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>

NANA YAW NTRAKWAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT
CREDITOR/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

PETER ZWENNES ESQ.
FOR THE DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING), OWUSU (MS.)
JSC, TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC, ACKAH-YENSU (MS.) JSC, ASIEDU JSC&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>

&nbsp;

TORKORNOO (MRS.)
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>

What should have been the pleasant enjoyment of
the fruits of justice has turned into a merciless round of litigation in the
suit that has brought this appeal before the Supreme Court. <o:p></o:p>

Background<o:p></o:p>

In October 2012, the plaintiff/appellant/appellant
(hereafter referred to as plaintiff) obtained judgment in the high court
against the defendant/respondent/respondent (defendant) in the sum of GBP
26,689.00 or its cedi equivalent, damages of GHC 6,000 with costs of GHC5000<o:p></o:p>

The defendant thereafter appealed and applied for
stay of execution of the judgment. On 11th February 2013, the trial
judge ordered the defendant to pay 50% of the judgment sum and stayed execution
of the other 50% of the judgment sum pending appeal. <o:p></o:p>

The defendant repeated the application for stay of
execution pending appeal in the court of appeal. The court of appeal dismissed
that application in March 2013 and affirmed the high court order to pay 50% of
the judgment sum. The plaintiff thereafter paid GHC 45,105.55 as 50% of the
judgment sum ordered. <o:p></o:p>

Since the appeal was filed in November 2012, the
appeal records have not been transmitted to the court of appeal for the appeal
to be heard. In October 2019, the plaintiff applied to the high court for leave
to issue a writ of fifa against the defendant/judgment debtor for execution of
the outstanding 50% judgment sum. The application was resisted by the
defendant. <o:p></o:p>

The high court judge ruled inter alia that ‘where a court gives a decision and a party
is dissatisfied, that party may appeal or in the case of a stay of execution,
repeat the application at the appellate court. Where the appellate court
dismisses the appeal or the repeat application, the effect is that the decision
of the trial court persists, unless specifically set aside or reversed. In the
instant case, the repeat application filed by the respondent was dismissed by
the court of appeal…The court of appeal did not reverse or set aside the order
made by the trial judge. It is my view that the said decision of the trial
judge is binding on the parties. The Respondent having paid 50% of the judgment
debt to the Applicant, which said payment was confirmed by the plaintiff’s
counsel in the garnishee proceedings and in his letter dated 7th
February 2019, it should not lie in the mouth of the applicant that the
defendant has not paid the 50% of the judgment debt ordered by the court. By
their own admission and acknowledgment, the plaintiff/judgment creditor has
confirmed and accepted the payment of 50% of the judgment debt…. It is my
considered opinion that the defendant/judgment debtor has satisfied the terms
and conditions of the partial grant of stay of execution made by the trial
judge. In the circumstance, I refuse the application for leave to file a writ
of fifa’<o:p></o:p>

1.