UNIVERSITY OF GHANA vs. CPA 18 INTEGRAS GH LTD AND ANOTHER [2018]DLHC3446

Date	2018-11-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 140/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3446

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3446
																																						<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" >UNIVERSITY OF GHANA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CPA 18 INTEGRAS GH LTD AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO. GJ
140/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;7TH
NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC K. BAFFOUR, ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
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>Plaintiff/Applicant
seeks the following reliefs on the endorsement to the writ issued:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">A
 declaration that pending the completion of the arbitral proceedings
 between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant currently taking place
 in London, UK or the resolution of the dispute between the parties, the 1st
 Defendant shall not draw down, access or utilize any or all moneys
 paid&nbsp; by Plaintiff into the Rent
 Escrow Account domiciled with 2nd Defendant.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">&nbsp;An order of perpetual injunction
 restraining 1st Defendant, its agents, assigns, privies or
 other persons no matter how so described from drawing down, accessing or
 utilizing any or all moneys paid by Plaintiff into the rent escrow account
 pending the completion of the arbitral proceedings between Plaintiff and 1st
 Defendant or the resolution of the dispute between the parties.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">An
 order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant,
 its agents, assigns, privies or other persons no matter how so described
 from permitting the 1st Defendant from drawing down, accessing
 or utilizing any or all moneys paid by Plaintiff into the rent escrow
 account pending the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings between the
 Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant or the resolution of the
 dispute between the parties.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="4" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Any
 further or other order(s) as the honourable court may deem fit.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
this application for interlocutory injunction Applicant prays the court for
orders to restrain 1st Respondent from accessing the monies in the
rent escrow account or orders to restrain 2nd Defendant from
permitting 1st defendant from accessing the rent escrow account
pending the conclusion of arbitral proceedings in London. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1st
Respondent has opposed the application and claim that it had a right to issue a
notice of termination due to the failure of Applicant, among other, to obtain
letters of credit. This per the contract led to the appointment of an expert
but Applicant desirous of escaping its liability under the contract between them
has challenged the appointment of the expert. And the expert was supposed to
determine the termination value and his determination was deemed to be an
arbitral award. And that the expert had issued his determination of the
termination value of US$165,765,753.00 to be paid by the Applicant and contend
that Applicant is not entitled to any interlocutory reliefs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1st
Respondent therefore contend that the case of the Applicant before the arbitral
panel is weak and without merit with no chance of an arbitral award being
granted in its favour as Applicant has advanced its own failings to obtain the
requisite approvals as a foundation of its case in arbitration and thereby
sinning against the principle of ex turpi
cause non oritur (from an evil cause no action arises).<o:p></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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Order
25 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 states as
follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The court may grant an
injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the
court to&nbsp; be just or convenient to do so,
and the order may be made either unconditionally or upon such terms and
conditions as the court considers just”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
an application for interlocutory injunction it is the duty of the Applicant to
demonstrate a number of factors, among which are, that there is a right that
ought to be protec</main>