SKY GOLD MINES LIMITED vs. SAMHENK MINING COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER [2017]DLHC4121

Date	2017-03-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. TOCC/01/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4121

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

JOHN BRIFO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

FRANCIS KOFFIE FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2017]DLHC4121
																																						<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" >SKY GOLD MINES LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAMHENK MINING COMPANY LIMITED &amp; ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. TOCC/01/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 24TH MARCH, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>JOHN BRIFO FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On 7 September, 2016, the
Plaintiff/Applicant herein brought this instant application for an interlocutory
injunction pursuant to Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (C.I
47). The Plaintiff/Applicant is praying this honourable court to restrain the
Defendants/Respondents, their servants, assigns or agents from entering the
concession in dispute and from carrying out any mining activities therein
pending the final determination of the pending suit. <o:p></o:p>The grounds of the
application are contained in the affidavit in support filed on 7/09/2016.<o:p></o:p>The Respondents are
opposed to the application and have demonstrated the grounds in the affidavit
in opposition filed on 17/01/2017.<o:p></o:p>Both parties also filed
their statements of case as required by law on 7/09/2016 and 17/01/2017
respectively.<o:p></o:p>In his written
submissions, learned Counsel for the applicant referred this court to the cases
of Vanderpuye vs Nartey (1977) 1GLR
428 CA and Frimpong vs Nana Asare Obeng
II (1974) 1GLR 16 in exposition of the grounds for the grant of
interlocutory injunction.&nbsp; Counsel
re-stated the said grounds as follows:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
hardship that would be caused if the application is granted or refused;<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
on the facts before the court it was just and convenient for the preservation
of the status quo;<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
on the facts, damages could afford adequate compensation for the loss if the
application was refused;<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
likelihood of there being a breach of the peace is not a legal ground for
granting injunction; and<o:p></o:p>e.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
applicant must show a strong prima facie case in support of the title asserted
and must make out a probability of the respondent’s case failing.<o:p></o:p></main>