STEPHEN COFIE vs. MRS FELICIA ACHEAMPONG [2015]DLCA5227

Date	2015-12-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H3/494/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA5227

CECILIA H. SOWAH [JUSTICE OF APPEAL]

OFORI ADUENI FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT

AGJABENG AKRASI WITH JUDITH BREFO FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA5227
																																						<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" >STEPHEN COFIE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESP/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MRS FELICIA ACHEAMPONG<o:p></o:p>(DEFT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT NO: H3/494/2015&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;DECEMBER 9, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OFORI ADUENI FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT<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">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>CECILIA H. SOWAH [JUSTICE OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:63.75pt center 3.25in;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:
0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The present application for an order
of Interlocutory injunction was filed on 26th June 2015 and is
opposed by the plaintiff/respondent/respondent as being incompetent and
constituting an abuse of process. One of the respondent’s arguments appears to
be based on the fact that two previous applications for Stay of Execution to
the trial court and the repeat application to this court were both dismissed,
but this application has been brought which is essentially the same and is
therefore an abuse of process. Counsel also contends that the application is
not sanctioned by the rules of court. Furthermore, there has been no lapse by
the trial court to warrant this present application. Merchant Bank vs. Similar Ways Ltd [2012] 1 SCGLR 440 distinguished.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Having
read the processes filed, listened to both counsel and carefully considered
their arguments, my view is that the application cannot be said to be
incompetent on jurisdictional grounds merely because a Stay of execution was
earlier dismissed by this court. The Respondent does not deny the fact deposed
to by the applicant that Civil Form 6 dated 16th June 2015 issued
after 8th June 2015 when this court dismissed the application for
stay of execution. Thus by virtue of Rule 21 of C.I.19, this court is seized
with jurisdiction to consider the present application.<o:p></o:p>That
said, the important issue is whether this application has merit or is an abuse
of process.<o:p></o:p>I
believe that the applicable Rule to resolve this issue is Rule 31 which sets
out the general powers of the Court of Appeal. Rule 31(e) provides that this
court may “make an interim order or grant
an injunction which the Court below is authorised to make or grant”.<o:p></o:p>The
question therefore is whether the court below is authorized to grant an interlocutory
injunction of its final judgment. The answer has to be “No”. The general
principle is that a trial judge becomes functus officio after final judgment is
delivered except for applications like Stay of execution which are specifically
permitted by the Rules.<o:p></o:p>I
agree with the submissions of Respondents’ counsel that the proper procedure to
challenge a judgment is to file an appeal, and if it is necessary to prevent
the successful party from enforcing any order, it is by an application for Stay
of execution which is granted on settled principles different from the
principles on which an application for interlocutory injunction are considered
and granted.<o:p></o:p>If
the trial court cannot injunct its own final judgment, then this court is not
permitted by its Rule 31(e) to do so. <o:p></o:p>I
have also failed to appreciate the competence of seeking to use a discretionary
equitable relief like an injunction to override the legal right acquired
through the judgment of a superior court when in my view the applicant herein
has not exhausted the laid down procedure to stay an executable order. <o:p></o:p>A
basic principle of law is that the injunctive remedy is available only in the
case of a legal or equitable right. Therefore between the Respondent and the
Applicant herein in these circumstances, it is clear that the
Defendant/appellant/applicant cannot assert a right superior to the respondents
which must be protected by an order of interlocutory judgment.<o:p></o:p>For
these reasons I find the application to be totally without merit and an abuse
of process. <o:p></o:p>The
application is dismissed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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;&</main>