ASSOCIATION OF GOLD EXPORTERS OF GHANA vs BANK OF GHANA & ORS
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JENNIFER DODOO (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Contract Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued for relief against directives making it compulsory to export gold through the 2nd Defendant, contending these were ultra vires, unjustified, and harmful. An interlocutory injunction was granted which the Plaintiff sought to extend. The Defendants opposed, asserting the legality of their actions and potential harm to the state. The court evaluated principles of injunction, including maintaining status quo and balance of convenience, ultimately ruling in favor of the Plaintiff to uphold the injunction, requiring a speedy resolution for the main suit.
The reliefs endorsed on the Plaintiff’s writ were as follows: i. A declaration that 1st Defendant’s publication BG/GOV/SEC/15 in the Daily Graphic on 8th September, 2015 compelling Plaintiff to export their gold only through 2nd Defendant is ultra vires its statutory mandate and therefore null and void and of no legal effect.
A declaration that No. 5 of Defendant’s publication BG/GOV/SEC/15 constructively and unjustifiably revokes Plaintiff’s licenses to assay gold for export outside Ghana and thereby incapacitates them from recovering their investments.
A declaration that No. 6 of Defendant’s publication BG/GOV/SEC/15 creates monopoly for 2nd Defendant against Plaintiffs and same is against statute and hence null and void and of no legal effect.
A declaration that Nos.
5 and 6 of Defendant’s publication BG/GOV/SEC/15 read together amount to unjustified interference in Plaintiff’s contract with the Government of Ghana hence be set aside.
v. A declaration that 2nd Defendant’s circular dated 10th September 2015 issued to 3rd Defendant is wrongful and of no legal effect and set aside.
Order compelling 3rd Defendant to accept and process Plaintiffs’ gold for export under procedures and regimes existing prior to 15th September 2015. vii.
Perpetual Injunction to restrain Defendants, their agents and assigns and all persons or entities howsoever claiming under them from in any way implementing the directives captioned BG/GOV/SEC/15. viii.
Order compelling Defendants to pay damages to Plaintiff for loss of income and business.
Cost of Plaintiffs’ litigation including Lawyers’ fee.
x. Further order(s) as the court may seem meet Subsequently, the Plaintiff obtained an interlocutory injunction which was to last for 10 days unless sooner repeated on notice.
The Plaintiff therefore filed a further application on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from compelling the Applicant’s members to export t heir gold only through 2nd Defendant.
In its Statement of Case, the Applicant referred the Court to the case of 18th July Ltd v. Yehans International Ltd (2012) SCGLR 168 urging the Court to take into consideration the following principles: i. Consider whether the case of an Applicant was not frivolous and had demonstrated that he had legal or equitable rights that the court should protect.
Ensure that the status quo was maintained so as to avoid any irreparable damage to the applicant pending the hearing of the matter.
Co