Try asking the following...
J U D G M E N T
ANSAH JSC.
The plaintiffs issued a writ of summons before the High Court, Accra, but the defendant entered a conditional appearance to it; subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application for an order of interlocutory injunction on 12-7-2007 to be moved on 30-7-2007. As was to be expected, the application was opposed by the defendant who tendered some exhibits.
The application which was put before the court presided over by Ofori-Attah J, was adjourned to 1-11-07 for hearing.
When the application came before the court presided over by Dzakpasu J, he dismissed it on 1-11-2007.
When the plaintiffs appealed against the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal it dismissed the appeal resulting in a further appeal to this court. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein and the defendant the respondent.
The grounds of appeal were that:
“i, The judgment is against the judgment weight of evidence.
ii The Court of Appeal erred by holding that the High Court was seized with power to deal with the application for injunction although it conceded that the case was not on the list of the court below on 1-11-07; neither had it been placed before the court.
iii. The court further erred by restraining itself from interfering with the decision of the High Court which obviously was a non-judicial act.
iv. The Honorable Court of Appeal further erred when it said that from the record, the 1st plaintiff was present at the hearing and therefore there could not have been a breach of natural justice.
v. The Court of Appeal grievously erred in failing to find that on the totality of the evidence, even if the High Court had the jurisdiction in the matter, (which is denied), it would have been proper, just and convenient for the court to have granted Plaintiffs’ application for injunction instead of dismissing same, without any reason whatsoever.
vi The costs of GH¢300.00 awarded against plaintiff/Appellant/Appellants was excessive and unwarranted.”
A consideration of the statement of case by the appellant showed that the crux of the submissions by the appellant in support of grounds one and two of appeal which were argued together, was that the High Court destroyed whatever jurisdiction it had to hear the motion when it had not been listed before the court, (court 15, coram: Dzakpasu J) for hearing as shown on the cause list for the court for that day. This was tendered in evidence as ‘A’, in support of an application to set aside the order of