ERNESMAY CHEMIST LIMITED vs. BENIJAX PHARMACY AND PHARMACY AUTHORITY [2019]DLHC6801

Date	2019-01-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ/360/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6801

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO

MR. MICHAEL YOURI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

MR. EDWARD K. OPPONG FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLHC6801
																																						<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" >ERNESMAY CHEMIST LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BENIJAX PHARMACY AND
PHARMACY AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION, COURT 6),
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/360/2019 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 16TH JANUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>MR. MICHAEL YOURI 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">

MR.
EDWARD K. OPPONG FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS <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">

HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO<o:p></o:p>

</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">

</div>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction:<o:p></o:p>[1]&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:/ackaa%20boafo%20RULLING/Aaa.kab.INJUNCTION.ERNESMAY%20Chemist%20Ltd%20v.%20BENIJAX.%20Pharmacy%20%20Authority.2018.Reviewed.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Drawing
on the provision of the law cited herein, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant
to whom I refer simply as the Applicant has filed in this court on November 27,
2018, an application praying for:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“… an
order restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent from operating a retail pharmacy in close proximity to the Plaintiff
pharmacy pending the final determination of the instant suit herein as per the
grounds set out in the accompanying affidavit”&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The case of Plaintiff/Applicant<o:p></o:p>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Speaking
to the motion, learned Counsel relied on all the averments as set out in the
accompanying affidavit and submitted that the 2nd Defendant is mandated by law
to regulate the profession of pharmacy which is important aspect of its mandate
as per Section 2 of Pharmacy Act, 1994 (Act 489) and also the provisions of Health
Professions Regulatory Bodies Act, 2013 (Act 857). Learned Counsel
further submitted by referring to Section
80 (d) of Act 857 that the 2nd Defendant in carrying out its mandate and functions
is required to ensure that there is equitable and accessible distribution of
pharmaceutical premises. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>