NTAADU VRS BOAKYE (J4/32/2024) [2024] GHASC 54 (11 November 2024)

NTAADU VRS BOAKYE (J4/32/2024) [2024] GHASC 54 (11 November 2024)

The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal wrongly exercised its discretion in refusing the stay of execution. The processes were properly considered, and the absence of counsel did not breach natural justice. Furthermore, the appeal to the Supreme Court was void for want of special leave, as required by the Constitution and Courts Act for such interlocutory orders.

Citation
NTAADU VRS BOAKYE (J4/32/2024) [2024] GHASC 54 (11 November 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Lawrence Yaw Ntaadu; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Stephen Boakye
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
11 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Refusal of Stay of Execution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Appeals Process, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Stay of Execution Exercise of Judicial Discretion Appeals Process Natural Justice Jurisdiction

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Yaw Ntaadu

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Stephen Boakye

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Refusal of Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion in refusing to stay execution pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the refusal breached the rules of natural justice due to counsel's absence
  3. 3 Whether the appeal to the Supreme Court was properly constituted without special leave

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal wrongly exercised its discretion in refusing the stay of execution. The processes were properly considered, and the absence of counsel did not breach natural justice. Furthermore, the appeal to the Supreme Court was void for want of special leave, as required by the Constitution and Courts Act for such interlocutory orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed