DEDE II vs. ANSAH AND OTHERS [1979]DLHC1055

Date	1979-10-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1055

AMPIAH J.

OPPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

A. A. OWUSU FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANTS.

[1979]DLHC1055
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >DEDE II <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANSAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 746<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
31 OCTOBER 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OPPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

A. A. OWUSU FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>On 28
September 1979, the plaintiff-respondent herein filed a writ of summons
claiming (a) a declaration that the appointment of the first defendant, Peter
Yaw Ansah, as the Yamfohene without the knowledge of the plaintiff is null and
void; and (b) an order restraining the first defendant from being sworn in and
acting as Yamfohene. This writ which was unaccompanied by a statement of claim
was served on the first and third defendants on the same date, i.e. 28
September 1979. It does not appear that the second defendant was ever served
though on 4 October 1979 an appearance under protest was entered for and on
behalf of all the defendants.<o:p></o:p>Meanwhile,
on 3 October 1979, the plaintiff-respondent herein had filed and moved an ex
parte motionfor an order of interim injunction against the defendant-applicants
herein restraining “the first defendant from acting in any way as the Yamfohene
and the second and third defendants from doing anything that will promote the
proclamation of the first defendant as the Yamfohene.” The application was granted
as prayed and on the same date the order was drawn up and served on the
defendants. Copies of the motion with its supporting affidavit and the order
drawn up have been exhibited in the present application as exhibits A and B
respectively.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicants herein seek an order of this court to set aside or vacate the
court’s order of 3 October 1979. Counsel for the applicants submitted, inter
alia, that not only were the facts upon which the earlier order had been
granted false and unmeritorious but also that the plaintiff-respondent has
failed to comply with the court order; it appeared under the circumstances that
the earlier application had been brought in bad faith.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court
has power to order an injunction whenever it is just or convenient to do so:
see Order 50, r.7 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A).
Motions for such orders normally should be, and usually are made upon notice to
the party against whom the order is sought. However, in a proper case, an
interlocutory injunction will be granted ex parte; that is to say, before the
other party has had the opportunity to appear to oppose it. Order 52, r. 3 of
L.N. 140A provides:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;“3. Except where according to the practice now
existing any order or rule might be made absolute ex parte in the first
instance, and except where not withstanding rule 2 a motion or application may
be made for an order to show cause only, no motion shall be made without
previous notice to the parties affected thereby. But the Court or a Judge, if
satisfied that the delay caused by proceeding in the ordinary way would or
might entail irreparable or serious mischief, may make any order ex parte upon
such terms as to costs or otherwise, and subject to such undertaking, if any,
as the Court or a Judge may think just; and any party affected by such order
may move to set it aside.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
clear from the above provision that this is a measure of extreme urgency and if
it is intended that it should endure for any length of time, it is customary
for the court to limit its duration until a day on which the matter may be
heard on motion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To grant
or refuse the application was in the discretion of the sitting judge. The
available evidence was contained in the affidavit in support of the application
which has been exhibited as exhibit A. It could not be said that the judge had
no basis for making the order. It was quite clear from the present order drawn
up that the judge did not intend the order made under the circumstances to be
final; the judge, not having heard from the other side made the order to endure
for only a short time. Paragraph (3) of the said order—exhibit B states, “It is
hereby ordered that motion be granted as prayed u</main>