Try asking the following...
R U L I N G
ANSAH JSC:
The plaintiff brought a motion for the following reliefs:
“(i). an order restraining the Parliament of Ghana from considering the Representation of the People Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument, C.I. 73 until the hearing and final determination of the instant action;
(ii). An order directed at the 1st defendant restraining the 1st defendant from using the Representation of the People Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument 2012 C.I.73, in its preparation for the conduct of the 2012 General Elections until the hearing and final determination of the instant action;
(iii). any further orders as to this Honorable Court may seem meet”.
I must observe that when this motion came up for hearing in this court, counsel for the applicant moved for the amendment of all references to the said CI 73 wherever it had appeared in the processes filed on the record for it had been withdrawn and replaced by a new Constitutional Instrument of the same title but numbered C.I. 78; the substance in the two instruments remained the same.
There being no objection to the amendment, it was readily granted; whereupon the motion was heard, with both counsel relying on their affidavits, and statements of case filed in support of or in opposition of the application.
In their viva voce submissions both counsel referred to and relied on Wellford Quarcoo v Attorney General and another (unreported), Writ No. JI/6/2012, SC, dated 13th June, 2012, in which the Honorable Dr. S.K. Date-Bah JSC summarized the law on interlocutory injunctions at page 2 of the short but powerful ruling referred to above.
What the learned justice said in connection therewith is so apt and accurate that I think it is so worthy of quotation that I do not only quote chunks of it He said:
“It has always been my understanding that the requirements for the grant of interlocutory injunctions are; first, that the applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be tried; second, that he or she would suffer irreparable damage which cannot be remedied by the award of damages, unless the interlocutory injunction is granted; and finally that the balance of convenience is in favor of granting him or her the interlocutory injunction. The balance of convenience of course means weighing up the disadvantages of granting the relief against the disadvantages of not granting the relief. Where the relief sought relates as here, to a public law matter (emphasis mine) particular care must