• Home
  • News
  • King Faisal application for Stay of Execution dismissed

King Faisal application for Stay of Execution dismissed

8 years ago

The GFA Disciplinary Committee has dismissed King Faisal’s application for a stay of execution in relation to the protest that was declared in favour of Dwarfs.

On March 17, 2015, King Faisal applied to the Disciplinary Committee for a Stay of Execution pending the outcome of its appeal filed on March 17, 2017 at the Appeals Committee of the Ghana Football Association to overturn the Decision in the Protest Case (Cape Coast Mysterious Dwarfs FC vrs. King Faisal FC) delivered by the Disciplinary Committee on March 10, 2015.

However in its findings, the Disciplinary Committee stated: 1. that King Faisal did not make the Application by a Motion but rather by an Affidavit

2. that there were no grounds set out on the affidavit to support the application but rather reference is made to the grounds set out in the appeal which is not before this Committee.

The relevant regulations on stay of execution are Articles 37(17)(a), 37(17)(b) and 37(17)(c) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

These provisions are as follows: 37(17)(a): “An Appeal to the GFA Appeals Committee does not operate as Stay of Execution except so far as the Disciplinary Committee may otherwise order”.

37(17)(b): “An application for stay of execution shall be by motion or (sic-on) notice within three (3) days after being notified in writing of the ruling on (sic-by) the Disciplinary Committee”.

37(17)(c): “Any application for stay of execution shall be heard by the Disciplinary Committee after the aggrieved party had paid the appropriate fee of GH¢250.00, GH¢150.00 and GH¢75.00 in the case of Premier, First and Second/Lower Division clubs respectively”.

It is clear that the Applicant is appreciative of Article 37(17)(a) and hence the application to this Committee for the stay of execution and rightly so as its current appeal does not operate as a stay of execution of the decision. The Applicant has also satisfied the requirement of Article 37(17)(c) by its payment of the requisite filing fee of GHc150.00.

However, the same cannot be said of the Applicant’s compliance of Article 37(17)(b) of the General Regulations. The requirement of the application being made by a Motion or Notice (sic – Motion on Notice) was lost on the Applicant. This Committee has had occasion in the past, to decide that an application for a stay of execution not made by a motion shall not succeed (In Re Stay of Application by Bechem United – April 2014). This Committee is not about to change its mind nor depart from that position.

Again, even if, one ignores the fundamental defect of the lack of motion (which the Committee shall not), the Affidavit also did not set out any ground for the application for the stay of execution. Thus, the Applicant did not offer the Committee any reason whatsoever to merit the decision it seeks from the Committee.

The Applicant must at least show that the stay of execution must be granted because it would suffer some irreparable damages should it be successful at the Appeal Committee. The lack of reason notwithstanding, the Committee is of the view that there will be no such damage caused to the Applicant; for the Applicant can be restored fully to its position before the execution of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee should it be successful at the Appeal Committee.

In sum, the application failed to meet the requirements of Article 37(17)(b) of the General Regulations of the GFA and the trite law for the grant of a stay of execution.

DECISION The Committee therefore, makes the following decisions: 1. That for failing to initiate the application for stay of execution by a Motion and for providing no grounds/reasons for the application, King Faisal FC did not meet the requirement with Article 37(17)(b) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

2. That for the above reason, King Faisal FC’s Application for Stay of Execution is hereby dismissed and the Division One League Board shall ensure that the decisions contained in the Ruling of the Disciplinary Committee of March 10, 2015 shall be fully executed.

3. That there is no order to cost.