RANSFORD FRANCE vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2012]DLSC2693

Date	2012-09-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J8/84/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC2693

J. ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

HON. NANA JOE GHARTEY WITH HIM SAMUEL ATTA-AKYEA MRS.

EFUA GHARTEY OSEI-OWUSU AND GODFRED YEBOAH DAME FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.

JAMES QUASHIE-IDUN WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.

HON. BENJAMIN KUMBOUR (ATTORNEY GENERAL) WITH HIM MRS.

MBROKOH EWOAL (SSA) AND SYLVESTER WILLIAMS FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2012]DLSC2693
																																						<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" >RANSFORD FRANCE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL<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. J8/84/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
19TH SEPTEMBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>HON. NANA JOE GHARTEY WITH
HIM SAMUEL ATTA-AKYEA, MRS. EFUA GHARTEY, OSEI-OWUSU AND GODFRED YEBOAH DAME
FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>JAMES QUASHIE-IDUN WITH
HIM ANTHONY DABI FOR THE 1ST&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.<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">

HON.
BENJAMIN KUMBOUR (ATTORNEY GENERAL) WITH HIM MRS. MBROKOH EWOAL (SSA) AND
SYLVESTER WILLIAMS FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT&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">

J. ANSAH
JSC (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>ANSAH JSC: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiff brought a motion for
the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>“(i). an order restraining the
Parliament of Ghana from considering the Representation of the People
Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument, C.I. 73 until the hearing and final
determination of the instant action;<o:p></o:p>(ii). An order directed at the 1st
defendant restraining the 1st defendant from using the
Representation of the People Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument 2012
C.I.73, in its preparation for the conduct of the 2012 General Elections until
the hearing and final determination of the instant action;<o:p></o:p>(iii). any further orders as to this
Honorable Court may seem meet”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>I must observe that when this motion
came up for hearing in this court, counsel for the applicant moved for the
amendment of all references to the said CI 73 wherever it had appeared in the
processes filed on the record for it had been withdrawn and replaced by a new
Constitutional Instrument of the same title but numbered C.I. 78; the substance
in the two instruments remained the same.<o:p></o:p>There being no objection to the
amendment, it was readily granted; whereupon the motion was heard, with both
counsel relying on their affidavits, and statements of case filed in support of
or in opposition of the application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their viva voce submissions both
counsel referred to and relied on Wellford
Quarcoo v Attorney General and another (unreported), Writ No. JI/6/2012, SC,
dated 13th June, 2012, in which the Honorable Dr. S.K. Date-Bah
JSC summarized the law on interlocutory injunctions at page 2 of the short but
powerful ruling referred to above. <o:p></o:p>What the learned justice said in
connection therewith is so apt and accurate that I think it is so worthy of
quotation that I do not only quote chunks of it He said:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“It has always been my understanding
that the requirements for the grant of interlocutory injunctions are; first,
that the applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be tried;
second, 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 favor of granting him or her the
interlocutory injunction. The balance of convenience of course means weighing
up the disadvantages of granting the relief against the disadvantages of not
granting the relief. Where the relief sought relates as here, to a public law matter (emphasis mine)
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”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is a good summary of the law on
the grant of interlocutory injunction in an area of public law and I adopt it
as my own. &nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>It is beyond controversy that the
acts in question are those of the Parliament of Ghana and&nbsp; t</main>