MANSELL GHANA LIMITED vs ACESS BANK GH. LTD & ANOR
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction against the first and second defendants related to Standby Letters of Credit (SBLC) and a Deed of Charge. The court evaluated whether the plaintiff satisfied the conditions for such an injunction per Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005. The court found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case or meet the necessary conditions precedent under the agreement. Consequently, the application was dismissed as without merit.
1 By or under Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005, (C. I. 47) plaintiff prays the court for interlocutory injunction: Against the 1st Defendant restraining it from honouring call on the SBLC and Deed of Charge security.
Against 2nd Defendant restraining it from calling on the SBLC and Deed of Discharge security.
2 The prayer is in line with its second and third reliefs in the writ of summons against the two defendants.
By the demands of Order 25 Rule 1 id, an applicant that seeks intervention of the court for an order of interim or interlocutory injunction in a case must satisfy the court that it shall be just, fair and convenient under the nature of facts and circumstances of the case to grant the request.
3 The learned authors of Kerr on Injunctions, 2013 6th ed. p15 succinctly sums up the power of the court to entertain such applications this way: The office of the Court to interfere being founded on the existence of a legal right, the man who seeks the aid of the Court must be able to show a prima facie case in support of the title which he asserts but needs the aid of the court for the protection of the right in question until the legal right can be ascertained …. He is not required to make out a clear legal title, but must satisfy the court that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of the legal right.
4 An applicant discharges the requisite proof for such applications if it could establish first and foremost the existence of a prima facie legal right, which has been injured or being threatened with injury, which needs immediate protective intervention of the court pending declaration or restoration of the right at trial.
Through the pleadings and the affidavit, Applicant’s duty is to show that it has a right both in law and equity which needs prior protection pending determination of the rights of the parties in the substantive suit.
Owusu v Owusu Ansah & Anor[2007-2008] SCGLR 870. As earlier pointed out, though Applicant is not required to make out a clear legal title, it must nonetheless satisfy the court that it has a fair question to raise as to the existence of the legal right.
Kerr on Injunctions.
5 On my part, my duty at this stage is to ascertain “whether the case [is] so clear and so free from objection upon grounds of equitable considerations that the court ought to interfere by way of injunction”. Saunders v Smith (1838) 7 LJCH 227, p. 233. Owusu v Owusu Ansah & Anor.
I have also looked at