[1984]DLCA953 • December 21, 1984 • Court of Appeal
OMAN GHANA TRUST HOLDINGS LTD. vs. ACQUAH
The matter before the Court of Appeal was an application by the unsuccessful occupants of House No. 45, MacCarthy Hill for a stay of execution and extension of time after the Court of Appeal had, on 27 November 1984, allowed an appeal and ordered the respondent-landlord to have immediate possession of the premises. The respondent had been kept out of possession for about five years and re-entered the premises two days after judgment without the sheriff. The applicants contended that they had appealed to the Supreme Court, that the appeal had prospects of success, that as alleged statutory tenants they were entitled to notice to quit and compliance with regulation 18 of the Rent Regulations, 1964 (L.I. 369), and that execution within two days was unlawful because of an alleged automatic stay. Portion of judgment relied on: “On 27 November 1984 we allowed an appeal from the judgment of the High Court which denied the respondent’s claim for recovery of possession of house No 45, MacCarthy Hill… He did so two days later that is on 29 November… The applicants invite us to stay execution and grant them extension of time.”
read moreJUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J. On 27 November 1984 we allowed an appeal from the judgment of the High Court which denied the respondent’s claim for recovery of possession of house No 45, MacCarthy Hill. We considered that the respondent was entitled to possession and we felt the hardship and inconvenience he suffered by being kept out of possession for five years, was so grave that we declared him entitled to repossession of the premises on the day we pronounced judgment. He did not, in fact, regain possession on that day. He did so two days later that is on 29 November. He was apparently able to do so without the aid of the sheriff. As at yesterday when we heard this motion, he was still in possession. The applicants invite us to stay execution and grant them extension of time. In the context of this case, the extension can only mean reversing ourselves on our order for immediate possession and throwing the respondent out of his own premises. On any view of this matter, that .....