DAVID GHANSAH vs. THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY AND 2 OTHERS [2010]DLHC8478

DAVID GHANSAH vs. THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY AND 2 OTH... [2010]DLHC8478

Date	2010-06-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C12\|56\|10
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC8478

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

MICHAEL GYAN OWUSU FOR THE APPLICANT

WILLIAM KUSI FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[2010]DLHC8478
																																						<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" >DAVID GHANSAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE NATIONAL
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY AND 2 OTHERS<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. C12|56|10&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:
28TH JUNE, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL
GYAN OWUSU FOR THE APPLICANT<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">

WILLIAM
KUSI FOR THE 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">

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<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>The plaintiff / applicant, to be referred to as the
applicant took out a writ of summons from the registry of this court on 28th
October, 2009. In the accompanying statement of claim, he asserted that he is a
member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), and until 2nd October,
2009, a polling station executive in Bantama Constituency of the Party. He also
pleaded that he instituted the action in representative capacity, representing
all but one of the polling station executives of the party in Bantama
Constituency that existed before 2nd October, 2009. In the writ, he
sought a declaration that the election of the polling station executives on 2nd
October, 2009 is null and void for non-compliance with the procedures for such
elections, an order directing the defendant/respondents, hereinafter to be
called the respondents, to organize fresh polling station executive elections
for the constituency, and an order of injunction to restrain the respondents
from conducting constituency elections that were scheduled for 29th
October, 2009 pending the final determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the instant action the applicant, who seeks an
interlocutory injunction against the polling station executives of the
constituency asserted that inspite of the order of injunction of 10th
December, 2009 and without any reference to the applicant and the laid down
procedures, purportedly re-run the polling station executive elections; that
the executives so elected purported to elect a new constituency executive of
the party. He further asserted that contempt proceedings have been instituted
against the respondents as regards the election of the constituency executives,
but he now seeks the order of interim injunction to restrain the polling
station executives because he claims their election was wrong.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondents opposed the motion on the grounds that
the polling station executives, as a group is not a party to the action
instituted by the applicant; they also denied that the election of the
constituency executive was flawed, as same was held in accordance with the law
and supervised by the Electoral Commission of Ghana.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondents further denied an assertion by the
applicant that the election of the constituency executives has been nullified.
They further contended that the constitution of the NPP debars its members from
instituting legal action against the party, until the internal mechanisms of
the party for resolution of disputes are exhausted. It is also their case in
opposition that the applicant went to sleep after he obtained the interlocutory
injunction of 10/12/09, and only woke up because of the forth-coming national
congress to elect a flag-bearer for the party. They therefore prayed that the
application be dismissed as it would cause greater hardship to the respondents
if it is granted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have the opportunity of reading the ruling of my
brother Ziblim J, delivered on 10th December, 2009. I have already
referred to this ruling. In the ruling Mr. Justice Ziblim said at p.4 that: “From
what has been discussed …I am of the considered view that there are serious
questions to be answered in respect of the writ as filed by the
plaintiffs/applicants and the reliefs they are seeking from this court should
not be treated lightly”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>What I understand Mr. Justice Ziblim to have meant by
this quotation is that the applicant’s writ is not frivolous or vexatious. I
believe it was mainly because of this consideration that he granted the
interlocutory injunction against the respondents, for it is now established
that the guiding principle on which the courts will grant an interlocutory
order of injunction is that the action taken by the applicant was not frivolous
or vexatious: see American Cynamid v. Ethicon (1975) AC 396 which was followed
in the Ghanaian case of Vanderpuye v. Nartey (1971) I.G.L.R 428 C.A. I have
carefully studied the writ of summons and the accompanying statement of claim
of the applicant’s filed on 28/10/09 and am tempted to agree with my learned
brother that there are</main>