SEATEC LTD. vs. PENTON HOOK FARMS LTD. AND OTHERS [1985]DLCA1001

Date	1985-07-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA1001

APALOO C.J.

MENSA BOISON JA

OSEI-HWERE J.A.

MISS PHILLIPS FOR THE APPELLANT.

B.J. DA ROCHA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

J.K. AGYEMAN FOR THE CO-RESPONDENT.

[1985]DLCA1001
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SEATEC LTD. <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 449<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
29 JULY 1985<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

MISS
PHILLIPS FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

B.J.
DA ROCHA FOR THE RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

J.K.
AGYEMAN FOR THE CO-RESPONDENT.<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 0in 0in">

APALOO C.J., MENSA BOISON AND OSEI-HWERE JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
C.J. delivered the judgment of the court. This appeal was extremely well argued
by counsel on both sides. However, on the conclusion of arguments last Friday,
each member of this court independently came to the same conclusion. Although
the issues canvassed and the arguments presented to us strayed a little, it is
clear to us that on this interlocutory appeal, the only issue of substance is
whether on the pleadings and affidavits placed before the court, there is the
need to preserve the motor grader in dispute in status quo so that irreparable
damage may not be caused to the applicant-appellant. There is also the
correlative issue: which of the parties would suffer the greater hardship if
this application were refused?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
area of property preservation pending suit, judicial pronouncements have not
been wholly consistent. But in Vanderpuye v. Nartey [1977] 1 G.L.R. 428, C.A.
this court took the trouble to lay down what it considered to be the guiding
principle. Having done that, it felt obliged to differ from the court below
which had refused to make, so to speak, an interim preservation order. In that
case, this court said at 432:<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">“The
governing principle should be whether on the face of the affidavits there is
need to preserve the status quo in order to avoid irreparable damage to the
applicant and provided his claim is not frivolous or vexatious.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicant prayed in aid, that case. The learned judge to whom the preservation
request was made, namely Ansah-Twum J., accepted that Vanderpuye v. Nartey
(supra) properly governed the matter but came to the conclusion that it did not
assist the applicant. A second judge, that is Ampiah J., was asked to look at
that matter again and grant the preservation order. He also declined to do so
and in so far as he considered this matter on its merits, he founded his
refusal to grant the interim relief on the same ground that his brother
Ansah-Twum J. did. The appellant says, both judges were wrong and we should put
them right by granting the order which they declined to grant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
considering the merits of this case, it is necessary to dispose of two issues
on which a lot of argument was addressed to us with apparent depth of feeling
by both counsel. The first is whether the request to Ampiah J. to vary the
order of Ansah-Twum J. was entertainable by him since it was in the nature of
review under Order 39 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN
140A), and secondly, whether since the co-defendant failed to renew his
registration in accordance with the Registration of Business Names Act, 1962
(Act 151), as amended by the Registration of Business Names (Amendment) Decree,
1974 (N.R.C.D. 293), he was entitled to be accorded the relief which he sought
and successfully obtained.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
order has a little history. When the appellant issued his writ in June 1984, he
claimed against the defendants an order for the specific performance of an oral
agreement to sell certain equipment including the grader in dispute to himself.
All these pi</main>