NILEX CORP. COMPANY & ANOR VS COAST CONNECT INT. HOLDING LIMITED & ANOR
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JANE HARRIET AKWELEY QUAYE (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Intellectual Property Law
- Equity and Trusts
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Her Ladyship Jane Harriet Akweley Quaye, sitting at the High Court, determined an interlocutory application arising from a commercial dispute in the medical equipment market. After hearing both counsel and reviewing the pleadings and affidavit evidence, the Court restated the three-part test for interlocutory injunction from Welford Quarcoo v. Attorney General and the Electoral Commission: a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience. The record showed rivalry over ownership of intellectual property and trademarks, establishing triable issues. However, invoking the basic principle that injunctions do not restrain an actionable wrong where damages are adequate, the Court found the Applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a favorable balance of convenience. The Court clarified that perpetual injunctions follow final determinations of infringement, referencing Georgina Achiaa v. Don Emilio Company. The application was refused and costs of GHC 10,000 were awarded to the Respondents.
The Court has heard arguments from both Counsel for and against an application for the grant of an Interlocutory Injunction filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants. The Court has also perused all the evidence provided by both parties. It is trite that the requirements for the grant of an Interlocutory Injunction as stated in the case of Welford Quarcoo v. The Attorney General and the Electoral Commission [2012] SCGLR 261 that first, the Applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be tried. Next, that he/she will suffer irreparable damages which cannot be remedied by the award of damages unless the injunction is granted and thirdly, the balance of convenience is in favour of granting him/her the injunction. Again, it is the basic principle of injunction Law that prima facie, the Court will not grant an injunction to restrain an actionable wrong for which damages are the proper remedy. See the case of John Akaribo Ndebugre v. Attorney General Aker Asa and Chemu Power Company Limited [DLSC 2816]. The grant of an injunction is also an equitable and discretionary power given to the Court. At this point, the Court is not to go into the merits of the case. What the Court is to do is to look at all the information put before it: the pleadings, the affidavit evidence etc. and determine whether or not there is a legal right in Law or Equity which necessitates the grant of injunction or whether or not there are issues to be tried. Indeed, all the evidence before this Court from both parties lead to the conclusion that there are issues to be tried. It is obvious that there is rivalry and competition between the parties over the sale of medical equipment and as to who owns the intellectual property and certain trademarks; thus, making the other party’s actions to be an infringement of the said trademarks. Therefore, from all the arguments made by the Applicants, they have only been able to show that there are serious issues to be tried. Applicants have not been able to convince the Court that on the balance of convenience, it will suffer irreparable damage and more importantly, that damages will not suffice as remedy should the Court not grant the injunction. The Applicants have cited the case of Georgina Achiaa (Trading under the name and style of Supergeona Enterprises Limited v. Don Emilio Company Limited [2017] 105 G.M.J 323 where both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court in giving the perpetual in gran