Trending News

A still borne piece of law, and rightly so declared in the case of Origin 8

Source: Thaddeus Sory, Esq.

A still borne piece of law, and rightly so declared in the case of Origin 8
MarryRight Ghana

INTRODUCTION

My Lord Justice Eric Kyei Baffour [herein after called the “author”] in an article, intituled; An Examination of the Case of Origin 8 and C. I. 132: A Still Born Piece of Law or an Austere Interpretation by the Supreme Court published on a Friday, March 4, 2022, edition of Dennislaw questioned the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in the case of Republic v High Court, (Criminal Division 9), Accra Ex Parte Ecobank Ghana Ltd; Origin 8 & Anor (Respondents & Interested Parties). The issue before the Apex Court, as rightly stated by the author in his critique of the decision in the publication above referred to was this;

“….whether C. I. 132 succeeded in taking away the jurisdiction of the trial court to stay execution of a judgment on appeal…”

The learned author took the view that the effect of the Supreme Court decision in the Origin 8 case is that, C.I. 132 did not take away the jurisdiction of the trial court [in this case the High Court] to stay execution of its judgments pending appeal provided that the record of appeal was not transmitted to the appellate court. The learned Justice of Appeal however did not think the decision of the highest court of the land on this point, to be right.

The author’s position on the effect of C.I. 132 on the trial court’s power to stay execution of its judgment pending appeal as a court of the first instance, appears to have been the position taken by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Their view was that with the amendment of rule 27(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1999 (C.I. 19) by rule 1 of the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (C.I. 132), trial courts, particularly the High Court, no longer had jurisdiction, as the court of the first instance, to entertain applications for stay of execution pending appeal, with the right to repeat the same application in the Court of Appeal, upon its refusal by the High Court.

The Supreme Court observed this fact and noted that given C.I. 132, the High Court and the Court of Appeal had taken the view above stated.

This paper would highlight the learned author’s disagreement with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Origin 8 case, and demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s conclusion on the interpretation and application of C.I. 132, is the correct position of the law.

Read the full article below.


Read the full article