ANTASER AFRIQUE BVBA VS GHANA SHIPPERS AUTHORITY & ANOR

On the 20th of July 2018, the Plaintiff filed a writ of summons in this Court asking for the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that by and under relevant Statute and operational instruments, it is only the 1st Defendant Authority which is mandated to carry out an Advanced Shipment Information System for shippers of cargo to and from Ghana and not the 2nd Defendant and by extension any other body and or entity.

2. A declaration that by and under relevant law, the mandate of the 2nd Defendant Authority under the auspices of relevant government bodies has to do with the collection of customs and taxes from taxpayers but not the establishment of an Advance Shipment Information system or cargo tracking notes for shippers of cargo to and from Ghana.

3. An order for Specific Performance directed at the Defendants and in particular the 1st Defendant Authority to enforce the terms of the Service Agreement entered into between Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant Authority, which aforesaid agreement is by Law still valid and pending.

4. Alternatively, an Order directed at the 1st Defendant Authority to pay the Plaintiff the sum of €750,000 Euros or its equivalent in GH Cedis being monies expended by the Plaintiff pursuant to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant Authority.

5. A General Injunction restraining the Defendants herein; their agents, privies, assigns and or any entity or representative working upon their instructions or on the instructions of any other third party, from carrying out the Advance Shipment Information system or a cargo tracking note system pending the determination of all matters as between the parties.

6. Cost of this suit inclusive of legal cost.

7. Any other relief or reliefs which this Honorable Court may deem fit.

On the same day, the Plaintiff filed an ex-parte application for an interlocutory injunction pursuant to Order 25 of C. I. 47. On the return date of the ex-parte application, the Court ordered that the Defendants be served with copies of the application.

I must observe that in directing that service of the application was to be effected on Defendants, the Court was mindful of what Denning L. J. (as he then was) in Republic v Appeal Committee of London Quarter Sessions; Ex-parte Rossi [1956] 1 All ER 670 at 674 stated that: “It is to be remembered that it is a fundamental principle of law that no one is to be found guilty or made liable by an order of any tribunal unless he has been given fair