Republic v High Court, Sekondi - Ex Parte: Mechanical Lloyd Co Ltd (J5/33/2015)[2015] GHASC 98 (21 July 2015)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT

ACCRA AD 2015

CIVIL MOTION NO.J5/33/2015

21^ST JULY 2015

THE REPUBLIC

VRS.

THE HIGH COURT, SEKONDI

EX-PARTE: MECHANICAL LLOYED CO. LTD - - APPLICANT

1. MANTRAC GHANA LTD - - INTERESTED PARTIES

2. TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS LTD

3. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA

4. SEKONDI/TAKORADI METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY

RULING

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC:

On 28^th October 2014, this Court discharged an order of interlocutory injunction granted by the High Court Sekondi on 10^th April, 2014. Soon after that the 1^st and 2^nd Interested parties herein on 24^th November, 2014 filed another application for mandatory injunction and Interlocutory injunction based on the same facts as in the earlier application.The applicant herein managed to have the trial High Court to set aside the aspect of the application relating to the mandatory injunction as irregular but dismissed the aspect in relation to the interlocutory injunction on the ground that it was properly before him. Counsel argued that the dismissal of the application to set aside the application for interlocutory injunction is an error in law which affects the jurisdiction of the High Court as it undermines the authority of the Supreme Court which had discharged the earlier order. Counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd Interested parties opposed the application on the grounds that the proper procedure for the applicant to adopt was to appeal against the refusal by the High court to set aside the application for interlocutory injunction. Both counsel for the 3^rd and 4^th Interested parties threw their weight behind the applicant.

Having considered the submissions made before us, as well as the affidavits and exhibits filed in the application, we are of the view that this application be granted. Our reasoning is that, under Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution, the Supreme Court has got supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and authority to issue orders and directions as well, as we did on 28^th October, 2014; for purpose of enforcing and securing the enforcement of our supervisory jurisdiction . The order of 28^th October discharged the order of interlocutory injunction. Although the circumstances and facts upon which the High Court granted the earlier interlocutory injunction on 10^th April 2014 have not changed, yet the 1^st and 2^nd Interested parties went back to the High Court with an application for the same reliefs based on the same facts. If the High Court judge is not prohibited from hearing the application, it would completely undermine the authority of this Court pursuant to Article 129 (3) of the Constitution; and also undermine the administration of justice.

Accordingly, we will quash the aspect of the ruling of Akrowiah J. dated 10^th June 2015 relating to the application for interlocutory injunction. We further prohibit Akrowiah J. from proceeding and hearing the application for interlocutory injunction filed by the 1^st and 2^nd Interested parties on 24^th November 2014. We further hereby prohibit Akrowiah J. from hearing the entire case and we hereby inform the Chief Justice to exercise her powers of transfer and place the entire case before another judge to hear the case expeditiously.

The Order of 10^th June 2015 is to be brought up and quashed. It is hereby quashed.

Registrar is to carry out the other orders.

We will award the Applicant cost of GH¢6,000, and award the 3^rd and 4^th Interested Parties GH¢2,000 each.

(SGD) S. O. A. ADINYIRA (MRS.)