|
Injunction - Interlocutory
injunction - 1992 Constitution
- Article 132 - Setting aside
the aspect of the application
relating to the mandatory
injunction - Wether or not
setting aside application for
interlocutory injunction is an
error in law which affects the
jurisdiction of the High Court
as it undermines the authority
of the Supreme Court -
HEADNOTES
On 28th October 2014,
this Court discharged an order
of interlocutory injunction
granted by the High Court
Sekondi on 10th
April, 2014. Soon after that the
1st and 2nd
Interested parties herein on 24th
November, 2014 filed another
application for mandatory
injunction and Interlocutory
injunction based on the same
facts as in the earlier
application.The applicant herein
managed to have the trial High
Court to set aside the aspect of
the application relating to the
mandatory injunction as
irregular but dismissed the
aspect in relation to the
interlocutory injunction on the
ground that it was properly
before him. Counsel argued that
the dismissal of the application
to set aside the application for
interlocutory injunction is an
error in law which affects the
jurisdiction of the High Court
as it undermines the authority
of the Supreme Court which had
discharged the earlier order.
Counsel for the 1st
and 2nd Interested
parties opposed the application
on the grounds that the proper
procedure for the applicant to
adopt was to appeal against the
refusal by the High court to set
aside the application for
interlocutory injunction. Both
counsel for the 3rd
and 4th Interested
parties threw their weight
behind the applicant
HELD :-
Accordingly, we will quash the
aspect of the ruling of Akrowiah
J. dated 10th June
2015 relating to the application
for interlocutory injunction.
We further prohibit Akrowiah J.
from proceeding and hearing the
application for interlocutory
injunction filed by the 1st
and 2nd Interested
parties on 24th
November 2014. We further hereby
prohibit Akrowiah J. from
hearing the entire case and we
hereby inform the Chief Justice
to exercise her powers of
transfer and place the entire
case before another judge to
hear the case expeditiously. The
Order of 10th June
2015 is to be brought up and
quashed. It is hereby quashed.
Registrar is to carry out the
other orders
STATUTES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
1992 Constitution
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
BOOKS REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING THE LEADING JUDGMENT
ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC:
COUNSEL
CONSTANTINE KUDZEDZI FOR THE
APPLICANT.
FREDERICK FAIDOO FOR THE 1ST
& 2ND INTERESTED
PARTIES.
SEYIRAM DARBI FOR THE 3RD
INTERESTED PARTY.
EBENEZER KWAITOO FOR THE 4TH
INTERESTED PARTY.
......................................................................................................................................................................................
RULING
......................................................................................................................................................................................
ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC:
On 28th October 2014,
this Court discharged an order
of interlocutory injunction
granted by the High Court
Sekondi on 10th
April, 2014. Soon after that the
1st and 2nd
Interested parties herein on 24th
November, 2014 filed another
application for mandatory
injunction and Interlocutory
injunction based on the same
facts as in the earlier
application.The applicant herein
managed to have the trial High
Court to set aside the aspect of
the application relating to the
mandatory injunction as
irregular but dismissed the
aspect in relation to the
interlocutory injunction on the
ground that it was properly
before him. Counsel argued that
the dismissal of the application
to set aside the application for
interlocutory injunction is an
error in law which affects the
jurisdiction of the High Court
as it undermines the authority
of the Supreme Court which had
discharged the earlier order.
Counsel for the 1st
and 2nd Interested
parties opposed the application
on the grounds that the proper
procedure for the applicant to
adopt was to appeal against the
refusal by the High court to set
aside the application for
interlocutory injunction. Both
counsel for the 3rd
and 4th Interested
parties threw their weight
behind the applicant.
Having considered the
submissions made before us, as
well as the affidavits and
exhibits filed in the
application, we are of the view
that this application be
granted. Our reasoning is that,
under Article 132 of the 1992
Constitution, the Supreme Court
has got supervisory
jurisdiction over all courts and
authority to issue orders and
directions as well, as we did on
28th October, 2014;
for purpose of enforcing and
securing the enforcement of our
supervisory jurisdiction . The
order of 28th October
discharged the order of
interlocutory injunction.
Although the circumstances and
facts upon which the High Court
granted the earlier
interlocutory injunction on 10th
April 2014 have not changed, yet
the 1st and 2nd
Interested parties went back to
the High Court with an
application for the same reliefs
based on the same facts. If the
High Court judge is not
prohibited from hearing the
application, it would completely
undermine the authority of this
Court pursuant to Article 129
(3) of the Constitution; and
also undermine the
administration of justice.
Accordingly, we will quash the
aspect of the ruling of Akrowiah
J. dated 10th June
2015 relating to the application
for interlocutory injunction.
We further prohibit Akrowiah J.
from proceeding and hearing the
application for interlocutory
injunction filed by the 1st
and 2nd Interested
parties on 24th
November 2014. We further hereby
prohibit Akrowiah J. from
hearing the entire case and we
hereby inform the Chief Justice
to exercise her powers of
transfer and place the entire
case before another judge to
hear the case expeditiously.
The Order of 10th
June 2015 is to be brought up
and quashed. It is hereby
quashed.
Registrar is to carry out the
other orders.
We will award the Applicant cost
of GH¢6,000, and award the 3rd
and 4th Interested
Parties GH¢2,000 each.
(SGD) S.
O. A. ADINYIRA (MRS.)
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD) V.
J. M. DOTSE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD) ANIN YEBOAH
JUSTICE OF
THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD) P.
BAFFOE BONNIE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD)
.J. B. AKAMBA
JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT
COUNSEL:
CONSTANTINE KUDZEDZI FOR THE
APPLICANT.
FREDERICK FAIDOO FOR THE 1ST
& 2ND INTERESTED
PARTIES.
SEYIRAM DARBI FOR THE 3RD
INTERESTED PARTY.
EBENEZER KWAITOO FOR THE 4TH
INTERESTED PARTY.
|
