BRADCO GHANA LTD AKA BRADCO vs. MICHAEL NII YARBOI ANNAN, ALFRED ANNAN AND HENRY OKO ANNAN [2019]DLHC8881

BRADCO GHANA LTD AKA BRADCO vs. MICHAEL NII YARBOI ANNAN, ALFRED ANNAN AND HENR... [2019]DLHC8881

Date	2019-07-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0425/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8881

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.

KWABENA KUNADU YIADOM FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

GASPAR LYLE NII-APONSAH WITH HOWARD ALBERT QUAYE FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLHC8881
																																						<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" >BRADCO GHANA LTD AKA
BRADCO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL NII YARBOI ANNAN, ALFRED ANNAN AND HENRY OKO ANNAN (DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION 5), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT NO. LD/0425/2019&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; &nbsp; DATE:
22ND JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWABENA KUNADU YIADOM FOR
THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

GASPAR
LYLE NII-APONSAH WITH HOWARD ALBERT QUAYE FOR 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
is an application for interlocutory injunction brought under Order 25, rule 1
of C.I 47 by the Plaintiff who has taken out a writ of summons accompanied by a
statement of claim against the Defendants seeking the reliefs endorsed thereon
from the court.<o:p></o:p>By
the provision in Order 25 rule 1 (6) of C.I 47 of 2004 the court may consider
the applicaton on the basis of the papers filed and this is what I intend doing
without hearing oral arguments from the parties. The principles which govern
the grant or refusal of such application are well-settled in case law.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the case of American Cyanamid Co vrs.&nbsp; Ethicon Ltd (1975) AER 504 they were given as
follows:<o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
there is a serious question to be tried or a right exists which needs to be
protected.<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
damages will adequately compensate the applicant in the event that the
uncertainty was resolved in his favour at the trial.<o:p></o:p>iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
on the balance of convenience the applicant will suffer greater harm if the order
sought for is not granted.<o:p></o:p>Again
in the case 18th July Ltd vrs Yehans International Ltd (2012) 1SCGLR
167 the Supreme Court at page 172 summarized the basic principles
governing&nbsp; application for interlocutory
injunction after reviewing several authorities on the subject in the following
manner<o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the status quo should as much as possible be maintained.<o:p></o:p>ii)