Try asking the following...
RULING
ANTHONY OPPONG (JA)
On 7th November, 2019, Multimedia Group Limited and Bell Communications Limited, operators of Joy 99. 7FM and Asempa 94. 7FM respectively (hereinafter to be referred to as 1st and 2nd Applicants respectively) filed a motion for interlocutory injunction pending the determination of an appeal.
On the face of the motion paper, it is indicated that the motion is brought under Rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C. I 19), invoking the general powers of the Court where the relevant provision states in sub rule (d) that “the Court may make any interim order or grant any injunction which the court below is authorized to make or grant”. The application is also premised, ex abundati cautela, on the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
The prayer contained in the motion paper is for an order to “restrain the National Communication Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as Respondent), its servants, agents, privies, assigns howsoever described from proceeding with implementation of decisions contained in letters requiring Applicants to reduce the authorized coverage radii of their radio stations, Joy 99. 7 FM and Asempa 94. 7 FM, from 100km to 45km as precondition for grant of final renewal authorizations or face a closure”. The Applicants initiated this legal battle by invoking the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the High Court for Judicial Review in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against Respondent when the latter wrote to the former threatening to shut down their radio stations unless they complied with the former’s demand on them to reduce the authorized coverage radii of their radio stations from 100km to 45km within specified deadlines as precondition for grant of final renewal authorizations.
This action of the Applicants did not find favor with the High Court and it was accordingly dismissed by the High Court.
The Applicants were dissatisfied of the High Court’s decision and so they appealed against it.
It may be noted that there is now no legal impediment in the path of the Respondent to execute its statutory duty, the High Court action having been dismissed, the pendency of the Appeal notwithstanding as a mere appeal does not operate as a stay.
As would be expected therefore, the Respondent renewed its efforts to get the applicants to reduce their coverage radii or face the peril of having their radio stations closed.
It is to prevent the Respondent from pursuing their mandatory statutory duty of regulatin