Fenu and Others Vrs Attorney General and Others [2018] GHASC 78 (17 October 2018)

Fenu and Others Vrs Attorney General and Others [2018] GHASC 78 (17 October 2018)

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal did not err in granting a stay of proceedings, as it acted within its discretion given the exceptional circumstances of multiple interlocutory appeals pending, and there was no evidence that the discretion was wrongly exercised or resulted in injustice.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 78
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Zikpuitor Akpatsu Fenu; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Benjamin Atsu; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Edward Marshal Koblah Penu; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Kareem Abu; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Alexander Petro Pons; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Attorney General; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Ministry of Water Resources; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Dredging International Ltd.; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Environmental Protection Agency
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (stay of Proceedings)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Judicial Discretion, Interlocutory Appeals, Discovery, Security for Appearance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Judicial Discretion Interlocutory Appeals Discovery Security for Appearance

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zikpuitor Akpatsu Fenu

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Benjamin Atsu

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Edward Marshal Koblah Penu

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Kareem Abu

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Alexander Petro Pons

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Attorney General

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Ministry of Water Resources

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Dredging International Ltd.

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Environmental Protection Agency

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (stay of Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion in granting a stay of proceedings at the High Court pending interlocutory appeals
  2. 2 Whether the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants warranted interference with the Court of Appeal's order

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal did not err in granting a stay of proceedings, as it acted within its discretion given the exceptional circumstances of multiple interlocutory appeals pending, and there was no evidence that the discretion was wrongly exercised or resulted in injustice.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed