JOHN AKARIBO NDEBUGRE v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORS
2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKAMBA, J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Constitutional Law
2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Minister for Energy from presenting an agreement to Parliament, contending that a Minister cannot unilaterally abrogate a Parliamentary-ratified agreement. The 1st Respondent opposed citing the Minister's authority under Article 268 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that an interlocutory injunction is discretionary and requires a prima facie case and good faith. The Court found no such case and no sufficient interest demonstrated, leading to the refusal of the application. Consequently, the balance of convenience was not in favor of granting the injunction.
R U L I N G
This is an application for an order of interlocutory injunction at the instance of the plaintiff/Applicant (hereinafter simply Applicant) for reasons stated in the supporting affidavit filed on 11th October, 2013. The 1st defendant /respondent (hereinafter simply the 1st respondent) upon receipt of the motion paper and supporting affidavit responded in an affidavit dated the 7th November, 2013 opposing the grant. The Applicant prays this court to injunct the Minister for Energy from laying before Parliament an agreement between the Government of Ghana and AGM Petroleum (Gh) Ltd, entered after the abrogation of the contract between the Government of Ghana and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents for non compliance with S. 23(15) of PNDCL 84. The Applicant premises his prayer on his contention that once parliament has ratified an agreement entered between the Government of Ghana and another person, the agreement assumes the status of an agreement with the force and backing of the Constitution for which reason such contract cannot be abrogated simply by a decision of a Minister of State. The Applicant also bemoans the payment of money to one of the Respondents ie. the 2nd Respondent following upon the void contract.
The 1st Respondent deposed that there was no credence in the Applicant’s claim that once Parliament had ratified an agreement that agreement could only be terminated by a judicial declaration or parliamentary resolution. The 1st Respondent contends that the Minister has the authority to terminate the petroleum agreement without recourse to either the Court or Parliament quoting the same article 268 of the Constitution relied upon by the Applicants also. The 1st Respondent explained that the sum of US $29 million paid to the 2nd Respondent was in return for data obtained by the state which payment was not affected by the illegality of the contract.
Interlocutory injunction is a discretionary remedy that a court may grant if it thinks it just or convenient so to do. It may be granted unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court shall think just. Order 25 of the High Court rules C.I 47 provides that “the court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient so to do, and the order may be made either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court considers just ”. Rule 22 of CI. 16 of this court provides that “an interlocutory judgment, dec