EMMANUEL ADDO ADJEI AND 4 ORS. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. ALHAJI YAW MANU AND 11 ORS. (DEFENDANTS) [2008]DLHC7520

EMMANUEL ADDO ADJEI AND 4 ORS. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. ALHAJI YAW MANU AND 11 ORS. (DEF... [2008]DLHC7520

Date	2008-02-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO.C3/6/08
Citation No.	[2008]DLHC7520

P. BRIGHT MENSAH JUSTICE

KWASI AFRIFA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS

AGYABENG G. AKAAS FOR THE 1ST-7TH DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

SIR DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE 8TH-12TH DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2008]DLHC7520
																																						<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" >EMMANUEL ADDO ADJEI AND 4
ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ALHAJI YAW MANU AND 11
ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.C3/6/08&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;DATE:
7TH FEBRUARY 2008<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWASI AFRIFA FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS <o:p></o:p>AGYABENG G. AKAAS, FOR THE
1ST-7TH DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SIR
DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE 8TH-12TH DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS. <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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

P.
BRIGHT MENSAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>By a
motion on notice filed in this case on 26/11/07 the plaintiff are seeking the
order of the Court restraining the defendants, their agents, assigns, etc and
those acting upon their instruction or direction from in any manner interfering
with the runing and management of the Ashanti Peugeot Branch of the Ghana
Private Road and Transport Union of TUC by the Plaintiffs herein, and in
particular from forming any interim management committee or asking any person
other than the Plaintiffs to run the affairs of the said branch pending the
hearing and final determination of the present suit. It is the case of the
Plaintiffs that they are the elected officers of the Ashanti Peugeot Branch of
the GPRTU having been elected into office on 25/03/07 for a period of 4 years.
Whereas the 1st — 7th Defendants are National Officers of the GPRTU, the 8th
12th defendants are the Ashanti Regional Officers of the said GPRTU. <o:p></o:p>The
assertion that the plaintiffs are the lawful and rightful persons to run and
manage the Ashanti Peugeot Branch by reason of their election into office is
hotly contested by the 1st — 7th defendants claiming that the purported
election did not follow the laid down procedure. Besides, they contend that the
said election was perpetuated by fraud. And thus pray for an order setting
aside the election on ground of fraud. <o:p></o:p>According
to the 1st —7th defendants there are serious allegation of impropriety against
the plaintiffs and they (1st — 7th defendants) as National Executives of the
GPRTU have the legal right to launch investigation into the alleged fraud and
impropriety against the plaintiffs. <o:p></o:p>On
these grounds the 1st — 17th defendants vehemently oppose the application for
an order for interim injunction against the defendants. <o:p></o:p>In a
13-paragraph Affidavit In Opposition, Alhaji Yaw Manu (the 1st defendant and
the deponent therein) has stated the grounds for which the application ought to
be dismissed, the most prominent being that of fraud. <o:p></o:p>It
is of particular interest to note, that the 8th — 12th defendants by their
Statement of Defence filed on 4/12/07 are asserting that when the National
Officers ie 1st — 7th defendants wrote to suspend the Plaintiffs to enable
investigations to be carried into the alleged fraud and other matters, the 1st
— 7th defendants constituted them as the Interim Management Committee to run
the affairs of the Ashanti Peugeot Branch. They i.e. 8th — 12th defendants were
also given the mandate to investigate the plaintiffs. They did so and having
made no adverse findings against them they asked the plaintiffs to resume their
legitimate duty as the branch elected officers. <o:p></o:p>By
paragraph 7 of the Statement of Defence the 8th — 12th defendants claim that in
the interest of justice and fair play they cannot associate themselves to the
illegal unlawful conduct of the other defendants.<o:p></o:p>In
an affidavit in support of the application it has been averred that the 1st —
7th defendants by a letter marked Exhibit A attached thereto, have ordered the
8th — 12th defendants to constitute an interim management committee to run the
affairs of the said branch. This, the plaintiffs find very distasteful and pray
for the immediate intervention of the court because, according to the
plaintiffs, the conduct of the defendants threatens the smooth running and
management of the branch. <o:p></o:p>It
cannot be overemphasized that much treatise has been spilled on the subject,
Interim Injunction. In the result it is absolutely inappropriate for me to
re-invent the wheels. Suffice to say, however, that the courts have been guided
over the years by some principles in an application for an order for interim
junction. And I shall have recourse to them in considering the instant
application. These are: <o:p></o:p>a)
that the case of the plaintiff (or the party applying for the order) should not
be frivolous; <o:p></o:p>b)
there should be serious issues to be tried between the parties; and <o:p></o:p>c)
on the balance of convenience to see whether irreparable damage was likely to
be caused to any of the parties to the application if the application was
granted or refused. <o:p></o:p>See:
VANDERPUYE v NARTEY (1977) 2 GLR 428
and POUNTEY v DOEGAH (1987-88) 1 GLR 111 C/A. <o:p></o:p>