AFARE APEADU DONKOR v. ECOBANK GHANA LTD. & EDC STOCKBROKERAGE LTD.
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Injunction
- Stay of Execution
- Equity
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Defendant/Applicant's request for a prohibitory injunction to restrain the Plaintiff/Respondent from executing the judgment was dismissed. The court found the application to lack merit, constituting an abuse of judicial process, and aimed solely to frustrate the Plaintiff.
RULING
The Defendant/Applicant seeks from this court a prohibitory injunction to restrain the Plaintiff/Respondent from executing the judgment he obtained on the 19th of December, 2013. The basis of this instant application is grounded on the fact that the Applicant claims to have filed an application at the Court of Appeal to discharge an order that refused to restore his appeal that had been struck out. And to him he seeks the injunction to restrain the Plaintiff/Respondent from going into execution as he has a good chance of restoring his appeal.
Though the applicant and his counsel were not in court to move the application on 29/10/15, nonetheless the court adjourned to today to deliver its ruling on the application filed by the Defendant/Applicant rather than striking it out for want of prosecution. The reasons for such a position cannot be far fetched as under Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 that the Applicant brings this application, it clearly states under Rule 6 that:
“The application may be considered on the basis of the papers filed and the court may direct where necessary, the lawyer address it on specific points of and facts”.
The Court does not deem it necessary to seek for further oral address beyond the written addresses filed.
Order 25 of the High Court, (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I 47 enjoins the court to grant an application for injunction in all cases in which it appears just or convenient to do so.
Injunction being an equitable remedy there are a number of factors that an applicant must satisfy the court before such an application may be granted. The first is what was stated in the case of VANDERPUYE v NORTEY [1977] 1GLR 428 @ 432 and restated in the case of OWUSU ANSAH v OWUSU ANSAH [2007 -2008] SCGLR 870 @ 875 that:
“the fundamental principle in application for interim injunction is whether the applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the court ought to protect by maintaining the status quo until the final determination of the action on its merits. This could only be determined by considering the pleadings and the affidavit evidence before the court”
This is not an ordinary injunction that the Applicant seeks. The net effect of the injunction he seeks is akin to or Siamese twin of stay of execution pending appeal as the Applicant intends to hold the execution processes in abeyance. For what cause? That the Applicant has no appeal pending before the Court of Appeal but that he ai