Dickson Vrs Municipal Chief Executive and 2 Others [2023] GHAHC 312 (2 May 2023)
The plaintiff has a legal right to be before the court, but granting the injunction would cause more hardship to the respondent, and the applicant can be compensated with costs if successful. Therefore, the injunction is refused.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] GHAHC 312
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Alhaji Osman Mohammed Dickson; Defendants: The Municipal Chief Executive & 2 Ors
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Ghana
- Judgment Date
- 2 May 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Application (injunction)
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction refused
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunction, Preservation of Status Quo
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alhaji Osman Mohammed Dickson
Plaintiff
The Municipal Chief Executive & 2 Ors
Defendants
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (injunction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of interlocutory injunction against the defendants
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff has a legal right to be before the court, but granting the injunction would cause more hardship to the respondent, and the applicant can be compensated with costs if successful. Therefore, the injunction is refused.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction refused
Orders
- Respondents undertake to pay all costs the plaintiff will incur should he succeed in his claim
- Suit to take the normal course
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, AMASAMAN, ACCRA HELD BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PRISCILLA DAPAAH MIREKU (J) SITTING ON TUESDAY THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2023. SUIT NO: E1/AHC/226/22 ALHAJI OSMAN MOHAMMED DICKSON - PLAINTIFF VS THE MUNICIPAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE & 2ORS - DEFENDANTS PARTIES : PLAINTIFF PRESENT; 2ND DEFENDANT REP. ABDUL BASID YAKUBU COUNSEL : BELINDA PWAMANG FOR THE PLAINTIFF IRENE BOAFO FOR JOSEPHINE MANU FOR 2ND DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT RULING The Plaintiff/Applicant has a motion on notice for an Order of interlocutory injunction against the defendants pursuant to Or 25 of ci 4. The 2ND Defendant/Respondent is opposed to same. It has been established that in the grant of interlocutory injunction, the governing principle was whether on the face of the affidavit there was the need to preserve the status quo in order to avoid irreparable damages to the applicant provided his case was not frivolous. Or vexatious’,, (See VANDAPUYE VS NARTEY[1977]1 GLR 248. This principle was also confirmed in the cases of OWUSU VS OWUSU-ANSAH (2007-2008) SCGLR 870 and YEHENS VS 1ST JULY LTD [2012] 2SCGLR 167. Per the facts and submissions submitted by Counsel, this Court is of the view that indeed the Plaintiff/Applicant has a legal right to be the court but the grant of injunction will cause more hardship to the Respondent and the applicant can be compensated with cost should he succeed in his claim. Thus this honourable court refuses the grant of interlocutory injunction against the respondents on ground that the respondents undertake to pay all cost that the plaintiff will incur should they succeed in this claim. Suit to take the normal course. (SGD) H/L. PRISCILLA DAPAAH MIREKU (MRS.) (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)