WELFORD QUARCOO vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION [2012]DLSC2661

Date	2012-06-13
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/6/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC2661

DR. DATE-BAH J.S.C. (PRESIDING).

BRIGHT OKYERE-AGYEKUM WITH TETTEH JOSIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

AMMA GAISIE SOLICITOR GENERAL WITH SYLVIA ADUSU PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT.

JAMES QUASHIE-IDUN WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT

[2012]DLSC2661
																																						<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" >WELFORD QUARCOO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/6/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 13TH JUNE, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>BRIGHT OKYERE-AGYEKUM WITH
TETTEH JOSIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>AMMA GAISIE&nbsp;&nbsp; SOLICITOR GENERAL WITH SYLVIA ADUSU&nbsp;&nbsp; PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JAMES
QUASHIE-IDUN WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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 1.0pt 0in">

DR.
DATE-BAH J.S.C. (PRESIDING). <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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DR.
DATE-BAH JSC:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>After a careful reading of
the plaintiff’s motion paper and supporting affidavit and a consideration of
his counsel’s oral submissions as well as the affidavit in opposition for the 1st
defendant and the oral submissions of counsel for the first and second
defendants, I have made the decision that I am about to explain.<o:p></o:p>It has always been my
understanding that the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory
injunction are: first, that the applicant must establish that there is a
serious question to be tried; secondly, that he or she would suffer irreparable
damage which cannot be remedied by the award of damages, unless the
interlocutory injunction is granted; and finally that the balance of
convenience is in favour of granting him or her the interlocutory
injunction.&nbsp; The balance of convenience,
of course, means weighing up the disadvantages of granting the relief against
the disadvantages of not granting the relief.&nbsp;
Where the relief sought relates, as here, to a public law matter,
particular care must be taken not to halt action presumptively for the public
good, unless there are very cogent reasons to do so, and provided also that any
subsequent nullification of the impugned act or omission cannot restore the
status quo.&nbsp; Given the reliefs that the
plaintiff is seeking in the substantive suit in this case, it is clear that if
he succeeds in securing the declarations he has claimed, the impugned
provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) will be declared void
and any actions made in pursuance of them nullified.<o:p></o:p>Accordingly, no
irreparable damage will have been caused the plaintiff during the period
between the issue of the writ and the date of judgment.&nbsp; On the other hand, the Government’s programme
for the creation of districts would suffer irreparable delay with a knock-on
effect on the general elections scheduled for December, which delay cannot be
remedied by monetary compensation, if the plaintiff should lose the substantive
action.<o:p></o:p>Applying the principles
outlined above, my decision is that the interlocutory injunction sought should be
dismissed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(SGD)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
DR. S. K. DATE-BAH<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT<o:p></o:p></main>