LAW TIP
Filing application for stay of proceedings does not operate as an automatic stay unless the court direct otherwise or the application has been heard and granted. REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT TAMALE EXPARTE: DAKPEM Z. HENRY KALEEM (J5/6/2015) (4/6/2015)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“On the question posed above we must point out that unless restrained or prevented by any law or rule of practice, a High Court judge cannot be denied the right to hear the case or any application in the proceedings the way and manner he deems fit. The fact that an application for stay of proceedings was pending did not operate to stay proceedings, unless the court so directs in the interim or unless the court has heard and granted same. The High Court rules do not make specific provision for a stay of proceedings, so any such application can only be made under rule 19 thereof as the court has an inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings for a variety of reasons, for instance to encourage a settlement. But even where specific provision is made in the rules, it will still not deny the court of its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings in various circumstances, for as stated by the authors of Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5thedition, paragraph 533 at page 422 ‘…..the two sources of the court’s power continue to exist side by side and may be invoked cumulatively or alternatively’. See these cases: RE WICKHAM, MARONY v. TAYLOR (1887) 35 Ch. D 272, CA; BLAIR v. CORDNER (No. 2)(1887) 36 WR 64; DAVEY v. BENTICK (1893) 1 Q.B 185, CA. As stated earlier the bare fact that an application for stay of proceedings has been filed does not operate as an automatic stay, so no party has the privilege to stay away from the proceedings, as the applicant did at the court below. This ground also fails.”