|
Practice and
Procedure - Interlocutory
injunction – Whether or not
there is a serious question to
be tried - Whether or not one
would suffer irreparable damage
which cannot be remedied by the
award of damages
HEADNOTES
It has always
been my understanding that the
requirements for the grant of an
interlocutory injunction
are: first, that the applicant
must establish that
there is
a serious question to be tried;
secondly, that
he or she
would suffer irreparable damage
which cannot be remedied by the
award of damages, unless the
interlocutory injunction is
granted; and finally that the
balance of convenience is in
favour of granting him or her
the interlocutory injunction.
HELD
Accordingly,
no irreparable damage will have
been caused the plaintiff during
the period between the issue of
the writ and the date of
judgment. On the other hand,
the Government’s programme for
the creation of districts would
suffer irreparable delay with a
knock-on effect on the general
elections scheduled for
December, which delay cannot be
remedied by monetary
compensation, if the plaintiff
should lose the substantive
action.Applying the principles
outlined above, my decision is
that the interlocutory
injunction sought should be
dismissed.
STATUTES
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Local
Government Act, 1993 (Act 462)
CASES
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
BOOKS
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING
THE LEADING JUDGMENT
DATE-BAH JSC
COUNSEL
BRIGHT
OKYERE-AGYEKUM WITH TETTEH
JOSIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
AMMA GAISIE
SOLICITOR GENERAL WITH SYLVIA
ADUSU PRINCIPAL STATE
ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT
.
JAMES
QUASHIE-IDUN WITH HIM ANTHONY
DABI FOR THE 2ND
DEFENDANT
______________________________________________________________________
R U L I N G
______________________________________________________________________
DR. DATE-BAH
JSC:
After a
careful reading of the
plaintiff’s motion paper and
supporting affidavit and a
consideration of his counsel’s
oral submissions as well as the
affidavit in opposition for the
1st defendant and the
oral submissions of counsel for
the first and second defendants,
I have made the decision that I
am about to explain.
It has always
been my understanding that the
requirements for the grant of an
interlocutory injunction are:
first, that the applicant must
establish that there is a
serious question to be tried;
secondly, that he or she would
suffer irreparable damage which
cannot be remedied by the award
of damages, unless the
interlocutory injunction is
granted; and finally that the
balance of convenience is in
favour of granting him or her
the interlocutory injunction.
The balance of convenience, of
course, means weighing up
the
disadvantages of granting the
relief against the disadvantages
of not granting the relief.
Where the relief sought relates,
as here, to a public law matter,
particular care must be taken
not to halt action presumptively
for the public good, unless
there are very cogent reasons to
do so, and provided also that
any subsequent nullification of
the impugned act or omission
cannot restore the status quo.
Given the reliefs that the
plaintiff is seeking in the
substantive suit in this case,
it is clear that if he succeeds
in securing the declarations he
has claimed, the impugned
provisions of the
Local
Government Act, 1993 (Act 462)
will be declared void and any
actions made in pursuance of
them nullified.
Accordingly,
no irreparable damage will have
been caused the plaintiff during
the period between the issue of
the writ and the date of
judgment. On the other hand,
the Government’s programme for
the creation of districts would
suffer irreparable delay with a
knock-on effect on the general
elections scheduled for
December, which delay cannot be
remedied by monetary
compensation, if the plaintiff
should lose the substantive
action.
Applying the
principles outlined above, my
decision is that the
interlocutory injunction sought
should be dismissed.
(SGD)
DR. S. K. DATE-BAH
JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT
COUNSEL;
BRIGHT
OKYERE-AGYEKUM WITH TETTEH
JOSIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
AMMA GAISIE
SOLICITOR GENERAL WITH SYLVIA
ADUSU PRINCIPAL STATE
ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT
JAMES
QUASHIE-IDUN WITH HIM ANTHONY
DABI FOR THE 2ND
DEFENDANT.
|
