DEBORAH OFORI & ANOR. VS DRIVER & VEHICLE LICENSING AUTHORITY (DVLA) & 2ORS
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court, per His Lordship George K. Koomson (J), addressed an interlocutory application by the Applicants to restrain the 2nd and 3rd Respondents from using a Toyota vehicle Rav 4, registration GX-2154-18, and to preserve it in the custody of the Registrar pending trial. The court considered Order 25 rules 1&2 of C.I. 47 and the principles governing injunctions. Framing the core question as the necessity of preservation, the judge emphasized whether it would be more just to grant an injunction than to award damages. Given that the Applicants had pursued monetary relief—GH¢95,000 as the purchase price, with interest—and had previously agreed to accept payment, the court found damages adequate. It also noted the 3rd Respondent’s use of the vehicle and resultant wear and tear, making preservation or eventual return unjust. Applying these factors, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the application.
In this application, the Plaintiffs/Applicants (herein after called “the Applicants”) pray for an order directed at the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents (hereafter called “the Respondents”) restraining them, their agents, assigns or privies, from the use of Toyata vehicle with Registration No. GX-2154-18 and for a further order for the preservation of the said vehicle in the custody of the Registrar of this Court pending the final determination of the case.
I have read the application and the respective affidavits filed by both Applicants and the Respondents.
I have also read the respective statement of case filed by the parties.
Consideration has been given to Order 25 rules 1&2 of C. I. 47 and the principles governing applications of this nature.
The core issue which I have been called to adjudicate on is as to whether or not there is the need or necessity to preserve the vehicle, the subject-matter of dispute.
It is observed that there is no dispute that the vehicle the subject matter of dispute was originally owned by the Applicants.
There is also no dispute that the said vehicle was offered for sale for which the 3rd Respondent expressed interest in acquiring the said vehicle.
I do not intend to go into the merits of the issue whether payment of the vehicle was effected and whether or not the transfer effected was unlawfully or fraudulently done.
The question that needs to be answered is, is there any need or necessity for the subject matter of this dispute to be preserved? Among the reliefs being sought by the Applicants is a prayer for an order that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants pay the Plaintiffs GH¢95, 000. 00 being the purchase price of Toyota vehicle Rav 4 to them and registered as GX-2154-18 in their joint names and a further prayer for interest on the GH¢95, 000. 00 at the current lending rate of Commercial Banks from date of registration to date of payment.
It is noted that in deciding whether to grant an injunction, the Court considers various factors, including whether an injunction is necessary.
If the Applicant can be adequately compensated with a financial reward, the Court might decide that an injunction is not necessary.
The question is, would it be more just to grant the injunction than to award damages? In considering the appropriateness of damages, I would like to re-echo what Turner LJ stated in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL v SHEFFIELD GAS CONSUMERS CO.