DALEX FINANCE & LEASING COMPANY (PLAINTIFF) vs. SANTA BARON VENTURES LIMITED & 3 ORS. (DEFENDANTS) [2019]DLHC7160

DALEX FINANCE & LEASING COMPANY (PLAINTIFF) vs. SANTA BARON VENTURES LIMITED & 3... [2019]DLHC7160

Date	2019-01-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/BFS/0795/2017
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7160

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.

SAMUEL CODJEO FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

KISSI ADJABENG FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLHC7160
																																						<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" >DALEX FINANCE &amp;
LEASING COMPANY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SANTA BARON VENTURES
LIMITED &amp; 3 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 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. CM/BFS/0795/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 30TH JANUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>SAMUEL CODJEO FOR
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">

KISSI
ADJABENG FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS<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>In this application the Plaintiff/Applicant prays this
Court for an order of Interim Preservation/Injunction restraining 1st
Defendant/Respondent from selling, mortgaging, pledging, and or dealing in away
or whatsoever and or howsoever with its shares in Santa Power Limited; and
restraining Santa Power Limited from selling, mortgaging, pledging, and or
dealing in away or whatsoever and or howsoever with its shares in Power
Distribution Limited. <o:p></o:p>The said application has been brought under Order 25
rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).<o:p></o:p>The core issue which I have been called upon to resolve
in this matter is as to<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not it is just and necessary for the preservation of the shares, the subject
matter of this application.<o:p></o:p>I have read the application and the respective
affidavits filed by both parties. I have also read the written submissions
filed by both Counsel for and against the grant of the instant application. I
have further given consideration to Order 25 rules 1&amp;2 of C.I. 47 and the
principles governing the grant or otherwise of applications of this nature. It
is observed that the Court in considering matters of this nature is concerned
with first, the maintenance of a position that will enable justice to be done when
its final orders are made in the matter and secondly, an interim regulation of
the parties, that is, in other respect, the most just and convenient in all the
circumstances. <o:p></o:p>It is noted that where in the course of proceedings for
orders regarding contractual situations, as in the instant case, and it is
sought to be restrained by interlocutory injunction of one of the parties, it
is necessary for the Court to analyze carefully the implications of the order
that is being sought on the parties concerned. <o:p></o:p>The most usual, though by no means the only, basis for
the grant of an interlocutory injunction is a need to protect the Applicant by
preserving the circumstances that exist at the time of his/her application
until the rights of parties are finally determined. Cotton LJ in the case of PRESTON v LUCK (1884) 27 CH.D 497 @ 505,
referred to such an application for interim injunction as; <o:p></o:p>“the object of which is to keep things
in the status quo, so that if at the hearing the Plaintiffs obtained judgment
in their favour, the Defendants will have been prevented from dealing in the meantime
with the property in such a way as to make that judgment ineffectual”.<o:p></o:p>It is noted further that, the appropriateness of
preserving the status quo in any particular case is dependent on all the
circumstances. Turner LJ in the case of JOHNSON
v SHREWSBURY &amp; BIRMINGHAM RY CO. (1853) 42 ER 358 @ 365, observed that:<o:p></o:p>“When this Court is called upon to interfere
by way of injunction in any such cases, it is upon the ground that its
interference is necessary to preserve the property while the legal construction
of the contract is being determined by the Court of law. This Court interferes
upon the ground that irreparable injury may ensue to the property forming the
subject matter of the contract pending the inquiry at law”.<o:p></o:p>It has been said that Courts of equity ‘upon principle,
will not ordinarily interfere by injunction, where the injunction will have the
effect of very materially injuring the rights of third persons not before the
Court’: see the case of HARTLEPOOL GAS
AND WATER CO. v HARTLEPOOL HARBOUR AND RY CO. (1865) 12 L.T 366 @ 368. It
is noted that in considering whether to g</main>