JOHN AKARIBO NDEBUGRE vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AKER ASA AND CHEMU POWER COMPANY LTD [2013]DLSC2815

JOHN AKARIBO NDEBUGRE vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AKER ASA AND CHEMU POWER COMPANY... [2013]DLSC2815

Date	2013-11-21
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/5/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2815

AKAMBA J.S.C.

THADDEUS SORY WITH HIM AKUA WIREKOWAA.

KODUA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.

GRACE OPPONG SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY WITH HER GYANFUA BOAKYE

ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT.

DR. KWEKU AINUSON FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.

[2013]DLSC2815
																																						<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" >JOHN AKARIBO NDEBUGRE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AKER ASA AND CHEMU POWER COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT,
ACCRA]<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"><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">

<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/5/20<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi">13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi"> 21<span style="font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:
Tahoma">ST<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"> NOVEMBER,
2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>THADDEUS SORY WITH HIM
AKUA WIREKOWAA.<o:p></o:p>KODUA FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>GRACE OPPONG SENIOR STATE
ATTORNEY WITH HER GYANFUA BOAKYE, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST
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">

DR.
KWEKU AINUSON FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

AKAMBA J.S.C. SITTING AS A SINGLE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><span style="font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi"><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">

<span style="font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">JUDGEMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is an application for an order
of interlocutory injunction at the instance of the plaintiff/Applicant
(hereinafter simply Applicant) for reasons stated in the supporting affidavit
filed on 11th October, 2013.&nbsp;
The 1st defendant /respondent (hereinafter simply the 1st
respondent) upon receipt of the motion paper and supporting affidavit responded
in an affidavit dated the 7th November, 2013 opposing the
grant.&nbsp; The Applicant prays this court to
injunct the Minister for Energy from laying before Parliament an agreement&nbsp; between the Government of Ghana and AGM
Petroleum (Gh) Ltd, entered&nbsp; after the
abrogation of the contract between the Government of Ghana and the 2nd
and 3rd Respondents for non compliance with S. 23(15) of PNDCL
84.&nbsp; The Applicant premises his prayer on
his contention that once parliament has ratified an agreement entered between
the Government of Ghana and another person, the agreement assumes the status of
an agreement with the force and backing of the Constitution for which reason
such contract cannot be abrogated simply by a decision of a Minister of
State.&nbsp; The Applicant also bemoans the
payment of money to one of the Respondents ie. the 2nd Respondent &nbsp;following upon the void contract.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The 1st Respondent
deposed that there was no credence in the Applicant’s claim that once
Parliament had ratified an agreement that agreement could only be terminated by
a judicial declaration or parliamentary resolution.&nbsp; The 1st Respondent contends that
the Minister has the authority to terminate the petroleum agreement without
recourse to either the Court or Parliament quoting the same article 268 of the
Constitution relied upon by the Applicants also.&nbsp; The 1st Respondent explained that
the sum of US $29 million paid to the 2nd Respondent was in return
for data obtained by the state which payment was not affected by the illegality
of the contract.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Interlocutory injunction is a discretionary
remedy that a court may grant if it thinks it just or convenient so to do.&nbsp; It may be granted unconditionally or upon
such terms and conditions as the court shall think just. Order 25 of the High
Court rules C.I 47 provides that “the court may grant an injunction by an
interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or
convenient so to do, and the order may be made either unconditionally or upon
such terms and conditions as the court considers just ”. Rule &nbsp;22 of CI. 16 of this court provides that &nbsp;“an interlocutory
judgment, decree or ORDER from which there has been no appeal shall not operate
to bar or prejudice the court from giving its own decision upon the appeal as
may seem just”.&nbsp; It is a basic principle of injunction law
that, prima facie, a court will not grant an injunction to restrain an
actionable wrong for which damages are the proper remedy.&nbsp; Also a prima facie &nbsp;case for an injunction must be made out before
leave is granted and the claim must be made in good faith.&nbsp; Furthermore an injunction will only be
granted at the suit of a party having sufficient interest in the relief sought
– See Maxwell vs. Hogg (1867) 2 Ch. App. 307 at 311)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In determining whether or not to
grant an injunction, the court is obliged to consider the comparative
convenience, that is to say that it is granted or refused according to the side
to which the balance of convenience is inclined.&nbsp; Having therefore considered the averments
filed in support and against the grant of this application it is my view that
no prima facie case has been made to warrant the grant of the relief prayed.&nbsp; The record before this court does not
demonstrate that the trial of this matter is imminent.&nbsp; The records rather show that the 2nd&nbsp; Respondent who is at the centre of the whole
dispute is yet to be served with notice of this suit out of jurisdiction pursuant
to leave granted by this court and an indication that same had not registered a
corresponding company under Act 179, the Companies Act, as prescribed under S.
23 (15) of&nbsp; PNDCL 84. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>