|
MARGARET
INSAIDOO J (MS).
RULING
This is an application for
Interlocutory injunction by the
plaintiff/applicant in this suit
praying the court to restrain the
Defendant by itself, servants,
agents, workmen, assigns, or
otherwise howsoever from selling
the immovable properties of the
Plaintiff that have been attached.
I
have carefully read all the
submissions and heard all the
arguments by both counsels on this
application. I have considered the
principles espoused in the
celebrated case of Vanderpujie
v Nartey [1977] 1GLR 428, and
other cases. I have considered the
principles such as whether it will
not only be just but also
convenient to grant this
application; whether there is a
serious question to be tried by
this court or whether irreparable
damage or injury will be caused to
any of the parties by the grant or
otherwise of this application.
In the case of the American
Cynamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd
[1975] 1 All ER 504 at 510, HL
Lord Diplock stated the object of
interim injunction as follows:
"The governing principle is that
the Court should first consider
whether if the plaintiff were to
succeed at the trial in
establishing his right
to a permanent injunction he would
be adequately compensated by the
award of damages for the loss
he would have sustained as a
result of the defendant's
continuing to do what was sought
to be enjoined between the time of
the application and the time of
the trial. If damages in the
measure recoverable at common law
would be adequate remedy and, the'
defendant would be in a financial
position to pay them,
no interlocutory injunction should
normally be granted, however
strong the plaintiff's claim
appeared to be at that state. "
I
have come to the conclusion that
the applicant has not satisfied
the court that this is a proper
case for the grant of interim
injunction for the following
reasons:
(1) This application
does not meet the criteria set out
in recent decided
cases such as Food
Specialities Ghana Ltd. v Technica
De Multiconstruction SA [1987-88J
1 GLR 25, CA, Baiden
v Tandoh [1991J'1 GLR 90.
2
(2) The question is; should the
status quo ante be preserved in
this suit?
Should the execution process be
stayed? Is the action
maintainable? No.
In Akim Akroso Stool & Others
[1989-90] 1 GLR 100,
it was held that since there was
no evidence that the alleged fraud
had ever been raised in previous
litigations between the parties,
the trial judge was right in
holding that the plaintiffs should
not be allowed to raise the issue
of fraud afresh.
The basis for the allegation of
fraud is a report which was not
exhibited and therefore this court
was not given an opportunity to
verify the assertions by counsel
for the applicant. All that I need
to do at this stage is to ensure
that it is not merely mentioned
but that on the face of the
affidavits filed, there is
substance in the allegation.
West African Lighterage Co. v
Micah (1919) FC (CC).
In my respectful view the
applicant sought to invite this
court to litigate or re-open
matters that had been adjudicated
by a court of co-ordinate
jurisdiction. I decline that
invitation; and that on the basis
of the affidavits filed, I am not
convinced that a prima facie case
has been established, to warrant
my granting this injunction.
The question again is can the
applicants be adequately
compensated for in damages if they
succeed at the trial? In my
respectful view, they can. Indeed,
the respondents on the balance of
convenience would suffer more if
this application is granted.
I
therefore refuse this application
in accordance with Order 25 of the
High Court Civil Procedure Rules,
CI47.
Costs of ¢5 million cedis awarded.
(SGD)
MARGARET INSAIDOO J. (MRS)
PARTIES:
JACOB AFUTU REPRESENTING PLAINTIFF
COMPANY.
DEFENDANT ABSENT.
COUNSEL:
OPOKU ADJAYE FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.
ACE ANNAN ANKOMAH FOR THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
|
