Lithur Vrs Lithur [2021] GHASC 113 (21 April 2021)

Lithur Vrs Lithur [2021] GHASC 113 (21 April 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal did not err in granting the repeat stay of execution application, as the exceptional circumstances and heightened hostilities between the parties justified the order to prevent chaos. The Court of Appeal was entitled to consider all materials before it, including supplementary affidavits, and the interim reliefs did not determine substantive property rights under Article 22(3) of the Constitution.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 113
Parties
Petitioner/appellant/respondent: Tony Lithur; Respondent/respondent/appellant: Nana Oye Lithur
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
21 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Legal Topics
Interim Reliefs, Stay of Execution, Matrimonial Property, Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts, Declaratory Orders
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Interim Reliefs Stay of Execution Matrimonial Property Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts Declaratory Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Lithur

Petitioner/appellant/respondent

Nana Oye Lithur

Respondent/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting a repeat stay of execution application based on exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering a supplementary affidavit not before the trial court
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's orders were declaratory and thus non-executable

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal did not err in granting the repeat stay of execution application, as the exceptional circumstances and heightened hostilities between the parties justified the order to prevent chaos. The Court of Appeal was entitled to consider all materials before it, including supplementary affidavits, and the interim reliefs did not determine substantive property rights under Article 22(3) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Orders

  • Respondent restrained from taking any steps to alienate the Ada property pending determination of the substantive petition.
  • Parties and counsel directed to focus energies on prosecuting the substantive petition for early resolution.