The Basis of the Grant of Interim Injunctions in Ghanaian Law ― Outline of a Theory ―

This paper, examines how Ghanaian courts have dealt with applications for interim injunctions. I identify the archetypical situation in which courts make determinations about interim injunctions and show that the archetypical situation raises the control rights problem. The control rights problem leads to three further questions - the strength of A’s claim question, the damages question and the irreparable harm question. An adequate theory justifying the basis of the grant of interim injunctions must provide satisfactory answers to these issues. When courts make determinations about interim injunctions they exercise discretionary powers. I identify and evaluate various theories upon which the basis of interim injunctions can be founded. Although I reject Scanlon’s consequentialist theory, I develop some of his insights to form the basis of the modified prima facie test, which I argue should form the basis for determining interim injunctions. I argue that the modified prima facie test is acceptable because it protects rights and the interests of vulnerable applicants. I then examine Leubsdorf’s theory on interim injunctions. I also analyze Lord Diplock’s decision in American Cyanamid v. Ethicon and Amissah JA decision in Vanderpuye v. Nartey - the case upon which interim injunctions are granted in Ghana. I reject all of these approaches because they do not sufficiently protect rights and consequently do not provide adequate answers to the control rights problem and the other questions identified above.