WILSON SOGLO AND 3 OTHERS vs. NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS [2018]DLHC4099

Date	2018-06-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E12/55/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC4099

ERIC BAAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC4099
																																						<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" >WILSON SOGLO AND 3
OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>SUIT
NO. E12/55/2018&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;22ND
JUNE 2018 <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC
BAAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>Order
25(1), C.I. 47 permits the court to grant an injunction by an interlocutory
order in all cases where same is considered just or convenient. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order
25 r (7) permits an application to be
made ex parte in situations of urgency. An
applicant who comes ex parte must
first prove to the court that there was urgency about
his or her case. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
Barclays Bank of Ghana Ltd v Ghana Cable
Co Ltd [1998-1999] SCGLR 1 at p. 7, it was held per
Acquah JSC (as he then was): <o:p></o:p>"Now, on the basis of
this well-settled principle, ex parte applications and orders for injunctions
are undoubtedly anomalies in our
administration of justice. And had the Rules of Court not permitted such
applications and order to be made, they would have been nullities. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Thus to prevent the misuse
of ex parte applications for injunctions, the
practice, as sanctioned by case
law, is that such applications