RULING ON THE APPLICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION ( HIGH COURT, ACCRA )
Plaintiff applicants, Festus Enyan represented himself and on behalf of the others
1st Respondent(NPP) was absent, since it’s presence is not relevant to the ruling
2nd Respondent, Hon Andy Appiah-Kubi was represented by Pius Nimako Yeboah
This case concerned the ruling on application for Interlocutory injunction filed by the plaintiff applicant’s Lawyer Samson Lardy Anyenini on their behalf against the 1st Defendant( NPP) and the 2nd Defendant( Hon. Andy Appiah-Kubi) to restrain, their servants, agents, privies or assigns or howsoever designated from proceeding with or in any way whatsoever conducting, supervising or dealing with or participating in any processes touching and concerning further activities or dealings towards the election or selection of 1st Defendant’s (NPP) Parliamentary Candidate for the Asante Akim North Constituency of the Ashanti Region for participation in the General Elections in December 2020 pending the determination of the suit…, and for a further Order to 2nd Defendant ( Hon. Andy Appiah-Kubi) not to participate in any activities towards and for the purpose of electing or selecting a Parliamentary Candidate for Asante Akim North Constituency…
The High Court Judge relied on the court rules and principles of law in ruling on the application for Interlocutory injunction, the High Court refused to grant the Injunction as the court considers just.
The Court set out the following legal factors for its ruling;
That the case of the plaintiff applicants was frivolous and had not demonstrated that they had a legal or equitable rights which a court should protect.The court held that, the plaintiff applicants stated in their application for Interlocutory injunction, that they noticed the fraud act ( their names removed from the album ) since 2016. The court find that they did not act accordingly, inform appropriate bodies or sort legal action per their claim. Therefore the equitable doctrine which states, He who seeks equity must do equity was breached, equity does not relieve a person of the consequences of his or her own carelessness and delay
That the plaintiff applicant’s couldn’t respond or challenge the 2nd Defendant ( Hon. Andy Appiah-Kubi ) Affidavit in Opposition as well as his Statement of Case containing full Legal Authorities and Evidence.
The court therefore admitted that, Election has been held at Asante Akim North Constituency relying on the attached evidence( Final Declaration of Results Forms ), the plaintiff applicant’s could not oppose it. The status quo was maintained to avoid any irreparable damage to the 2nd Defendant (Hon Andy Appiah-Kubi).
The court couldn’t grant an injunction on Election which has already been held. It was admitted and on the court records that 2nd Defendant ( Hon Andy Appiah-Kubi) had not receive any Writ or Summons before and on the primaries ( day of the election). The plaintiffs applicant’s couldn’t oppose same.
The court held, that it would not be convenient and appropriate in the face of the law to grant an injunction considering the balance of convenience principle and therefore refused to grant the application of injunction to restrain the Defendants.
The case was adjourned sine die (without a date or without a time fixed)