Try asking the following...
RULING
In this motion for an order of interlocutory injunction, Applicants are seeking to restrain the Defendant [hereinafter called Respondent] from closing down 1st Plaintiff/Applicant facility.
The writ of summons in the action was filed on 24/01/2020 with four (4)reliefs indorsed.
The Applicants in the substantive case are seeking an order of perpetual injunction, an order compelling defendant to re-open the facility, an order of payment of GH¢324, 000. 00 as special damages and Damages for unlawful closure of the facility.
The deposition in support is to the effect that, the 1st Applicant facility is a registered body under the law and 2nd Applicant is a qualified Medical Practitioner and Physiotherapist, who had obtained his qualification from KNUST in 2007. Exhibit “A” series has been cited in support as well as Exhibit “B”Furthermore, Exhibit ‘C’ and ‘D’ which are certificate of incorporation and authorization to operate issued by Traditional Medicine Practice Council respectively, have been proffered as the reason for the practice and treatment administered in the facility.
The Applicants contended that, they are engaged in legitimate business and yet Respondent closed the facility down.
It is also contended, the work of Applicants does not fall under the mandate of Respondent Institution and they cannot purport to control and regulate the practice of Applicants.
Besides, it has been averred that, the refusal to re-open the facility after persistent demands is unlawful and is causing a lot of inconvenience and hardship to the Applicants.
Exhibits ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’ and ‘H’ have been tendered in support of the averments in the affidavit and I have examined them.
In opposition, Respondent alleged as part of its duty, it had visited Applicants facility to do a head count and were informed that, herbal medical practice was what it was engaged in, but subsequently, it received a complaint about the Applicants in the form of Exhibit ‘DB1’ and proceeded to investigate.
In paragraphs 12 to the end Respondent recounted the investigation they did on different dates and the methodology they adopted and that, by the procedures, practice, prescription etc, the Applicant was practicing orthodox medicine.
Exhibit BD2, DB3, DB4, DB5 & DB6 were proffered in support and in the bid to rebut the averments of Applicants.
The Respondent contended that, 1st Plaintiff/Applicant was arrested, pursuant to the powers given to it by section 47 of the Health Professional Reg