Sethi Brothers Ghana Ltd Vrs Regency Alliance Ltd [2019] GHASC 25 (30 May 2019)

Sethi Brothers Ghana Ltd Vrs Regency Alliance Ltd [2019] GHASC 25 (30 May 2019)

The majority held that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of discretion to grant a stay of proceedings under Rule 20(1) of CI 16. The mere inability to pay the judgment debt or dissatisfaction with the terms set by lower courts does not justify a stay. The application was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 25
Parties
Respondent/respondent: Sethi Brothers Ghana Limited; Appellant/applicant: Regency Alliance Insurance Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
30 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Application dismissed by majority; dissent would have granted stay on condition of partial payment.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Stay of Proceedings, Appellate Practice, Insurance Claims, Enforcement of Judgments
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Stay of Execution Stay of Proceedings Appellate Practice Insurance Claims Enforcement of Judgments

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sethi Brothers Ghana Limited

Respondent/respondent

Regency Alliance Insurance Limited

Appellant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court should grant a stay of proceedings of execution of the High Court judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify the exercise of discretion for stay of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of discretion to grant a stay of proceedings under Rule 20(1) of CI 16. The mere inability to pay the judgment debt or dissatisfaction with the terms set by lower courts does not justify a stay. The application was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed by majority; dissent would have granted stay on condition of partial payment.

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings pending appeal is dismissed.