2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' writ of summons dated 16/3/18, as their term of office had expired, and they had no locus to maintain the action. The defendants also had no legal right to organize a meeting for election of new executives. An Interim Executive Committee (IEC) was constituted to organize elections for new PTA executives.
RULING
(1) The plaintiffs by their motion on notice dated 16/3/18 pray the court for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from organizing a PTA meeting of the Bishop Herman School for the purpose of electing new PTA executive to replace them. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have no legal basis to organise the said meeting at any period in time for the stated purpose. The defendants disagree and in turn question the locus standi of the plaintiffs in instituting this action and bringing the instant motion. Order 25 of C.I. mandates a party to bring an application for interlocutory injunction, and for the court to grant same if it considered same to be just or convenient. Order 25, C.I. 47 itself does not set out any criteria for the consideration of such an application, so it is to the common law and decided cases that we turn for assistance.
It should be noted, that being an exercise of discretionary power, judicial precedent may not strictly apply, since each case is determined on its peculiar facts and merits. However, the general guidelines are almost always adhered to. In Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007 – 8] SCGLR 870, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental hurdle an applicant has to surmount is to establish that he has a legal right; either at law or in equity, in the subject matter of the suit. In casu, the plaintiffs admit that having been elected on 24/3/14, their term ended on 24/3/18. They issued their writ on 16/3/18; so if their dates are taken as the truth, they instituted their action before their term expired. As of this present day however, their mandate has expired and I do not see any legal basis for the pendency of their action. The fact that they issued the action on 16/3/18 is quite irrelevant, for they well knew that their term was to expire two days thereafter. This court cannot allow them to use the legal action as a cloak to perpetuate themselves in power.
Accordingly, whether I apply the date proferred by the plaintiffs or the defendants, the plaintiffs' terms of office has elapsed and they have no locus to continue to maintain a legal action in court. In the absence of a legal right; either at law or in equity, it will be pointless for the court to grant the instant application for interlocutory injunction.
(2) I examined all the facts put up by the defendants and the submissions of their counsel and I found no legal basis for the defendants' attempt to hijack the manage