Jowak Sawmills Vrs Attorney-general and Another [2005] GHACA 24 (11 October 2005)

Jowak Sawmills Vrs Attorney-general and Another [2005] GHACA 24 (11 October 2005)

The appellant's contract was cancelled and the 2nd Respondent was in possession; the appellant had no subsisting right to protect. The claim was frivolous and vexatious, and granting the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the 2nd Respondent.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] GHACA 24
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Jowak Sawmills; 1st Defendant/respondent: Hon. Attorney-General; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Omega Wood Processing
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
11 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling on Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Timber Utilisation Contracts, Revocation of Government Contracts, Preservation of Property
Source Language
english
Contract Law Administrative Law Interlocutory Injunction Timber Utilisation Contracts Revocation of Government Contracts Preservation of Property

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jowak Sawmills

Plaintiff/appellant

Hon. Attorney-General

1st Defendant/respondent

Omega Wood Processing

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling on Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from entering the timber concession pending determination of the suit
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had a right capable of protection by injunction after cancellation of its contract

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's contract was cancelled and the 2nd Respondent was in possession; the appellant had no subsisting right to protect. The claim was frivolous and vexatious, and granting the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the 2nd Respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in its entirety
  • Decision of the High Court dated 11th October, 2005 affirmed