INDEPTH NETWORK vs. DANIEL KOFI BAKU & NINE OTHERS [2018]DLHC5440

Date	2018-12-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ/862/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC5440

JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH- BOAFO

NANA AGYEI BAFFOUR AWUAH WITH THERESA TABI AND NAA AMAKUMAH

BARNOR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

JUSTIN AMENUVOR WITH HOPE AGOADO FOR THE 1ST TO 7TH DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS /APPLICANTS

EMEFA AMOA-ADDO HOLDS BRIEF OF HANS AWUDE FOR THE 8TH DEFENDANT

ALFRED BUATSI HOLDS BRIEF KWABENA ADU KUSI FOR THE 9TH DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC5440
																																						<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" >INDEPTH NETWORK<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DANIEL KOFI BAKU &amp; NINE OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/
APPLICANTS)<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/862/2018&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;DATE: 3RD DECEMBER,
2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NANA AGYEI BAFFOUR AWUAH
WITH THERESA TABI AND NAA AMAKUMAH BARNOR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/
APPLICANT/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>JUSTIN AMENUVOR WITH HOPE
AGOADO FOR THE 1ST TO 7TH DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS
/APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>EMEFA AMOA-ADDO HOLDS
BRIEF OF HANS AWUDE FOR THE 8TH DEFENDANT <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">

ALFRED
BUATSI HOLDS BRIEF KWABENA ADU KUSI FOR THE 9TH DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</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">

</div><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">

MOTION
FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION<o:p></o:p>

</div>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction:<o:p></o:p>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There
are two (2) Applications for Injunction before this court namely: a) the first application was filed by
the Plaintiff on May 24, 2018 and; b)
the 2nd application was filed by Counsel for the 1st to 7th Defendants on July
13, 2018.&nbsp; Due to time and space
constraints, and also for convenience, I discuss and determine both
applications in this Ruling. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Order 25 r 1 of CI 47 stipulates that the court may grant an
injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the
court to 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.
In deciding whether or not to grant an order of interlocutory injunction it has
been held that the court would consider the justness and convenience of the
order<a href="file:///F:/COURT%20OF%20APPEAL/New%20folder/New%20folder/New%20folder/New%20folder%20(2)/Indepth%20V.%20Kofi%20Baku%20et%20al..docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>.<o:p></o:p>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Informed by the
provision of the law cited herein, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant
whom I refer to simply as the Plaintiff by the application filed is praying
for:<o:p></o:p>“a) An
order for interlocutory injunction restraining forthwith the 1st, 2nd, 3rd</main>