ANGELA DIALA LIST vs PAUL E. LIST & ORS

The requirement for the grant of an interlocutory injunction as stated in the case of Welford Quarcoo v AG and the EC [2012] 1 SCGLR at 261 are first that the Applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be tried. Secondly, that he or she would suffer irreparable damages which cannot be remedied by the award of damages unless the interlocutory injunction is granted. Thirdly, that the balance of convenience is in favour of granting him or her the interlocutory injunction. It is the basic principle of injunction law also that prima facie, a Court would not grant an injunction to restrain an actionable wrong for which damages are the proper remedy. See the case of John Akaribo Ndebugre v AG, as Aker Asa and Chemu Power Company Limited [DLSC 2816], it follows therefore that where irreparable damage would not be caused the Applicant in this matter, then there is no need for the status quo to be preserved by way of an interlocutory injunction.

The Court has heard arguments from both counsel for and against this application. The Court has also read all the affidavit in support and against, as well as perused the Exhibits especially Exhibit ‘B’ which is a previous ruling in a similar matter which involves almost the same parties with the exception of the 3rd Defendant in this matter. The Court has also weighed the relative strengths and weaknesses pertaining to each party. It is trite that at this stage, the Court will not go into the merits of the case. This Court would refuse this application for injunction for the following reasons. No irreparable damage would be caused to the Plaintiff but on the other hand, damage would be caused to the Respondents because Respondents as a going concern, thrives on these contracts, transactions and business. It is for the same reason that the Court did not grant an injunction to the Plaintiff in its ruling in Exhibit ‘B’ which Applicant has attached to their application. On the other hand however, Plaintiff can be adequately compensated for, if the Respondent remained in business. Such an injunction would obviously affect the revenue base of the Respondent. This Court is inclined to agree with Counsel for the Respondents that, in fact it is in the Applicant’s own interest that the contract is sustained. For these reasons, the application is refused. That notwithstanding, the parties are to abide by the Court’s order in exhibit ‘B’ and corporate with the Registrar General to form an interim committee to ma