[2012]DLHC7398 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">DR. NANA OPPONG<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">EUNICE WUBBELING & 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center; line-height:115%"><b><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">(</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">DEFENDANT<b>)<o:p></o:p></b></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><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"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">SUIT NO. BMISC 483/2012 </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> DATE: 2ND JUNE, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in; mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">HIS LORDSHIP MR. E. F. DZAKPASU (J).<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><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"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">On the 22nd day of March, 2012 this Court granted an Ex-parte application for an Order restraining the Defendants from publishing defamatory material concerning the Plaintiff/Applicant therein. That order was made to remain in force for ten (10) days only after which the Applicant was to re-apply on notice. The instant motion entitled - "Plaintiff's Motion on Notice for an Order Extending the Interim Injunction Order ………." is occasioned by the facts deposed in paragraphs 7 - 16 of the Affidavit in support. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The Defendants/Respondents have opposed the motion on the grounds contained in paragraph 5 — 11 of the Affidavit in Opposition. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">I have studied the averments on both sides of the application. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">In my humble view, it is not entirely right to say, as the respondents contend, that the instant application is "incompetent, misconceived and unknown to the rules of Court" simply because it is made "to extend" the interim injunction which was to last for only 10 days. (emphasis mine). My reasoning is firstly, that the instant application is made on Notice as this Court directed, and secondly, the language of the Motion Paper appears to have been fed from the language of 0.25 r 1 (10), which reads — "if no application is made on notice to extend the order (ex parte), it shall lapse after the expiration of ten days ……" (emphasis mine). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">On the more potent issue, the instant application was filed on 2/4/12 without an accompanying statement of case. In the Respondent's Affidavit in Opposition filed on 8/5/12, it challenged the competence of the application on the grounds that it sinned against O.25 r 1 (3) — ie that it was filed without the mandatory statement of case attached to it and therefore that this Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">In an apparent confession and repentance, the Applicant filed a statement of Case on 9/5/12, ostensibly to purge himself of that sin. My duty by law shall be to condemn the sinner to the purgatory I shall therefore uphold the Respondent's submission that the omission to attach the statement of case to the Motion Paper and Supporting Affidavit as 25 r. 1 (3) dictates renders the application incompetent and I dismiss it for that person. I shall however award no costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p></span>