AGT FINANCIAL SERVICES (PLAINTIFF) vs. ARAMIS FREIGHT & IMPEX GHANA LTD. & 4 ORS. (DEFENDANT) [2019]DLHC7154

AGT FINANCIAL SERVICES (PLAINTIFF) vs. ARAMIS FREIGHT & IMPEX GHANA LTD. & 4 ORS... [2019]DLHC7154

Date	2019-08-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/0871/2016
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7154

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.

SEM IROKO FOR PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT/ CREDITOR/RESPONDENT/ RECEIVER

[2019]DLHC7154
																																						<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" >AGT
FINANCIAL SERVICES<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ARAMIS
FREIGHT &amp; IMPEX GHANA LTD. &amp; 4 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LABOUR
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/0871/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 8TH AUGUST, 2019<o:p></o:p>

SEM IROKO FOR
PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT/ CREDITOR/RESPONDENT/ RECEIVER <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.<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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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>This
is an application filed by the 4th Defendant/Judgment/Debtor/ Applicant.&nbsp; By Order 25 rule 1 (3) of CI. 47, any application
for Interlocutory Injunction shall be attached with a statement of case.&nbsp; The subrule (3) of Order 25 rule 1 provides:<o:p></o:p>“The Applicant shall
attach to the motion paper and supporting affidavit, a statement of case
setting out fully arguments, including all relevant legal authorities in
support of the application.”<o:p></o:p>The
wording of the subrule (3) of rule 1 of Order 25 appears to be a mandatory
provision.&nbsp; The Applicant therefore is
obligated to attach a statement of case.&nbsp;
The failure to attach a statement of case to an application for
Interlocutory Injunction makes the application incompetent.&nbsp; Being incompetent, the Court has no duty to
entertain such an incompetent application.&nbsp;
It constitute a non-compliance of a prerequisite to the filing of such a
process.<o:p></o:p>In
the instant application, I have realised that the application which was filed
by the 4th Defendant/Judgment/Debtor/Applicant has no statement of
case attached in compliance with the subrule (3) of rule 1 of Order 25 of CI.
47.&nbsp; The said application is therefore
incompetent and ought to be struck out.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Accordingly, the application for
Interlocutory Injunction filed by the 4th
Defendant/Judgment/Debtor/Applicant is hereby declared incompetent and
dismissed. I make no order as to costs.<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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>

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