GHANA EMULSION CO. LTD. (PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT) vs. DEN DANSKE BANK ETC. (DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT) [2004]DLCA7107

GHANA EMULSION CO. LTD. (PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT) vs. DEN DANSKE BANK ETC. (DEFENDAN... [2004]DLCA7107

Date	2004-04-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H3/236/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA7107

OWUSU J.A. (PRESIDING)

OWUSU ANSAH J.A

MRS. ABBAN J.A.

[2004]DLCA7107
																																						<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" >GHANA EMULSION CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DEN DANSKE BANK ETC.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: H3/236/2004&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
23RD APRIL, 2004<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 2.25pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 2.25pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>OWUSU,
J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is an application for and on behalf of
the Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant praying for an order of interlocutory
injunction restraining the Defendant/ Respondent by itself, servants, agents
(including in particular Nii Armah Dodoo of KPMG, Mobil House, Accra) privies
whomsoever or otherwise howsoever from taking over or in manner whatsoever
assuming possession and/or control of all and singular the assets of the said
plaintiff pending the hearing and determination of the appeal of the said
plaintiff filed herewith. And for such further or other orders as to this
honourable court may appearnjust and proper. <o:p></o:p>The
appeal referred to was filed on 27/2/2004 against the ruling of His Lordship
G.A. Aryeetey, J delivered on the 12th of December, 2003.<o:p></o:p>The
said ruling, dismissed an action of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein in an
application filed by the Defendant/Respondent under Order 25 rule 4 on the
ground that same was vexations, frivolous and an abuse of the court process.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant/Respondent, vehemently opposed the application contending that same
is frivolous, vexatious and a gross abuse of the process of the court and has
been brought in utter bad faith.<o:p></o:p>In
the affidavit in support of the motion, the applicant recounted the events that
led to the institution of his action which was dismissed by Aryeetey, J on
15/12/2003.<o:p></o:p>After
the dismissal of the action, the applicant caused to be filed before the High
Court a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. This motion was
dismissed by the court on 24/2/2004.<o:p></o:p>Even
though in paragraph 19 of the affidavit in support of the present application,
the applicant avers that:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I am advised and verily believe that by reason
of the legal errors in the said Ruling plaintiff has a good chance of setting
the same aside and therefore that plaintiff ought to move this honourable court
to restrain the said Receiver and Manager from taking over the assets of the
plaintiff Company pending the hearing and determination of the said
appeal," no appeal has been filed against the ruling dismissing the
application for interlocutory injunction. <o:p></o:p>Arguing
the application, counsel for the applicant told the court that the application
was brought under rule 31(d) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, C.I. 19.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
referred to the Notice of Appeal filed and exhibited as "Y.A.K.I." He
submitted that the grant of the application is discretionary and that the order
being sought for, is for the interim. He referred the court to the cases of
VANDERPUIJE vrs. NARTEY [1977] 1 GLR. 428, BARNIEH vrs. MENSAH &amp; OTHERS
[1984-86] 2 GLR. 20 and REPUBLIC vrs. HIGH COURT, KUMASI Ex-Parte: DR. KWAME
APPIAH POKU &amp; 3 OTHERS. Civil Motion No. J. 5/12/2004 SC dated 5th April
(unreported) and Order 50 rule 7(1). <o:p></o:p>Rule
31(d) under which the application is brought, gives the court general power in
determination of appeals. Among these powers, under 31(d) is the power to
"make any" interim order or grant any injunction which the court
below is authorised to make or grant:" and.........<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It was counsel's submission therefore that
under order 50 rule 7(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of 1954 LN.
140, the court below is authorised to grant such an order. Reading through the
general powers of the court, one thing that is clear is that the powers given
to the court can only be exercised in its appellate Jurisdiction. For the court
to make an order which the court below could make, the appellate jurisdiction
must first be invoked. No appeal has been filed against the ruling of Aryeetey,
J. refusing the application for interlocutory injunction. <o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant submitted that they invoked the appellate jurisdiction by
filing the Notice of Appeal. The question is in respect of which ruling was the
Notice of Appeal filed? Not against the ruling refusing the application for
interlocutory injunction in the court below. Where the order had been sought
for and refused in the court below, then what the applicant could have done if
dissatisfied, was to have appealed against it but not come here to repeat the
application. With all due deference to learned counsel th</main>