MECHANICAL LLOYD LTD v CROFT AND ANOTHER

In a defamation suit before HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J., the plaintiffs sought additional business-regulatory reliefs compelling the defendants to disclose their foreign investment at registration, to declare profits transferred abroad, to clarify whether they hold agency franchises directly or through Unimeck of London, and to confirm repatriation of manufacturers’ commissions. The pleadings stated that both sides held agency agreements with Massey-Furgusson and competed in the same market. The judge surveyed Ghana’s trade-regulation statutes, including the Ghanaian Business Promotion Act, 1970 (Act 334) and the Exchange Control Act, 1961 (Act 71), discussing whether private parties—especially competitors—may enforce such statutes through injunctions, drawing on English practice and American cases and scholarship. While acknowledging that competitor standing might be possible if actual or highly probable loss is shown, the court emphasized that the plaintiffs pleaded no damage or likelihood of damage and that the statutory enforcement claims would not conveniently be tried alongside defamation. Concluding that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action for the reliefs (b)–(e), the court struck them out and awarded costs of ₵150.00 to the respondents.