2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court initially granted an interlocutory injunction, which was later vacated by another judge due to changed circumstances causing hardship. The applicant sought to quash this order, arguing improper jurisdiction and error of law. The Supreme Court outlined that the jurisdiction of the High Court is defined by the Constitution and statutory law, not by procedural rules. The court has inherent jurisdiction to vary its interlocutory orders due to changing circumstances. Moreover, the pendency of an application for stay of proceedings does not automatically stay the case. The application to quash the order was rejected.
BENIN, JSC:-
The High Court (Commercial Division) in Tamale presided over by Noble Nkrumah J. heard and granted an application for an order of interlocutory injunction on 29th April 2014 in case number El/8/2014 titled DAKPEM ZOBOGUNAA HENRY A. KALEEM v. 1. LANDS COMMISSION
2.ATTORNEY-GENERAL
3 DAKPEMA NAA ALHASSAN MOHAMMED DAWUNI.
Whilst Noble Nkrumah J. who made that order was temporarily out of the jurisdiction, another High Court Judge namely Ayisi Addo J. heard an application for review of the earlier order and granted same on 29th September 2014.
The application that was brought before the High Court to seek review was dated 12th September 2014 and it was served on Counsel for the respondent therein, who is the applicant herein, the same day. The motion on notice read:
MOTION ON NOTICE FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Honourable Court will be moved by Mohammed Alhassan Esq. on behalf of the Applicant herein praying this Honourable Court for an order reviewing an order of interim injunction restraining Applicant in relation to the Plaintiff/Respondent 's writ issued on 241212014 ... ... ... .upon the grounds as contained in the supporting affidavit.
In the affidavit in support the deponent recounted the facts from the issuance of the writ to the grant of the application for interlocutory injunction. He then recounted the change in circumstances since the grant of the order of injunction which were causing hardships and injustice to them and this in their view justified them in coming back to the court for a review of the order. The respondent, now applicant, did not file any affidavit in answer; he rather filed an application to stay proceedings the return date of which post-dated the hearing of the application for review.
The High Court presided over by Ayisi Addo J. granted the application for review in these words: ". . . ..I hereby do order that the injunction order granted against the 3rd defendant and his agents is hereby reviewed and vacated forthwith."
The applicant herein by this application is invoking this court's supervisory jurisdiction to quash and vacate the above order. The reliefs sought are these:
a. That His Lordship G. Ayisi Addo J. sitting as a vacation Judge in the High Court (Commercial Division A) Tamale on 29th September 2014 wrongly assumed jurisdiction under rule 42 of the High Court (Civil Procedure)Rules, (2004) C.I. 47 when he reviewed and vacated the order of interlocuto