<p><strong>ROGER KORSAH J.</strong></p><p> Bearing on this application for stay of execution, many learned and weighty points have been advanced. But, on reflection, it appears to me that the matter falls to be decided on a few comparatively simple grounds.</p><p>The order of which a stay is sought is that: the co-defendant-appellant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) do pay into court the sum of ¢1,029,592 within ten days from the date of the judgment appealed against. Before I address myself to the merits or demerits of this application for stay, I feel some explanation is due from me for ordering that the sum for which judgment was given was to be paid into court.</p><p>I have already expressed in the body of my judgment in this suit, the view that the Administration of Lands Acts, 1962 (Act 123), covers those cases in which land is already known to belong to a particular stool and that is why no machinery is provided under Act 123 for the resolution of rival claims. The provisions of Act 123, in my view…</p>