THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, SEKONDI EX-PARTE: MECHANICAL LLOYED CO. LTD [2015]DLSC3204

Date	2015-07-21
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/33/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLSC3204

ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

AKAMBA JSC

CONSTANTINE KUDZEDZI FOR THE APPLICANT.

FREDERICK FAIDOO FOR THE 1ST & 2ND INTERESTED PARTIES.

SEYIRAM DARBI FOR THE 3RD INTERESTED PARTY.

EBENEZER KWAITOO FOR THE 4TH INTERESTED PARTY

[2015]DLSC3204
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE HIGH COURT, SEKONDI<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: MECHANICAL LLOYED CO. LTD<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. J5/33/2015&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;
DATE: 21ST
JULY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>CONSTANTINE KUDZEDZI FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>FREDERICK FAIDOO FOR THE 1ST &amp; 2ND
INTERESTED PARTIES.<o:p></o:p>SEYIRAM DARBI FOR THE 3RD INTERESTED PARTY.<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">

EBENEZER KWAITOO FOR THE 4TH INTERESTED
PARTY <o:p></o:p>

ADINYIRA (MRS.), JSC (PRESIDING) DOTSE, JSC ANIN
YEBOAH, JSC BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC AND AKAMBA, JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>&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><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>ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC:<o:p></o:p>On 28th October 2014, this Court discharged
an order of interlocutory injunction granted by the High Court Sekondi on 10th
April, 2014. Soon after that the 1st and 2nd Interested parties
herein on 24th November, 2014 filed another application for
mandatory injunction and Interlocutory injunction based on the same facts as in
the earlier application.The applicant herein managed to have the trial High
Court to set aside the aspect of the application relating to the mandatory
injunction as irregular but dismissed the aspect in relation to the
interlocutory injunction on the ground that it was properly before him. Counsel
argued that the dismissal of the application to set aside the application for
interlocutory injunction is an error in law which affects the jurisdiction of
the High Court as it undermines the authority of the Supreme Court which had
discharged the earlier order. Counsel for the 1st and 2nd
Interested parties opposed the application on the grounds that the proper
procedure for the applicant to adopt was to appeal against the refusal by the
High court to set aside the application for interlocutory injunction. Both
counsel for the 3rd and 4th Interested parties threw
their weight behind the applicant. <o:p></o:p>Having considered the submissions made before us, as
well as the affidavits and exhibits filed in the application, we are of the
view that this application be granted. Our reasoning is that, under Article 132
of the 1992 Constitution, the Supreme Court has got supervisory jurisdiction
over all courts and authority to issue orders and directions as well, as we did
on 28th October, 2014; for purpose of enforcing and securing the
enforcement of our supervisory jurisdiction . The order of 28th
October discharged the order of interlocutory injunction. Although the
circumstances and facts upon which the High Court granted the earlier
interlocutory injunction on 10th April 2014 have not changed, yet
the 1st and 2nd Interested parties went back to the High
Court&nbsp; with an application for the same
reliefs based on the same facts. If the High Court judge is not prohibited from
hearing the application, it would completely undermine the authority of this Court
pursuant to Article 129 (3) of the Constitution; and also undermine the
administration of justice.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Accordingly, we will quash the aspect of the ruling of
Akrowiah J. dated 10th June 2015 relating to the application for
interlocutory injunction.&nbsp; We further
prohibit Akrowiah J. from proceeding and hearing the application for
interlocutory injunction filed by the 1st&nbsp; and&nbsp; 2nd
Interested parties on 24th November 2014. We further hereby prohibit
Akrowiah J. from hearing the entire case and we hereby inform the Chief Justice
to exercise her powers of transfer and place the entire case before another
judge to hear the case expeditiously.<o:p></o:p>The Order of 10th June 2015 is to be
brought up and quashed. It is hereby quashed.<o:p></o:p>