A Sekondi High Court, presided over by Justice U.P Derry, has refused to set aside an interim injunction it had slapped on the management of Stellar Logistics Limited through an ex-parte motion, which four residents of Takoradi had brought before the Court.

The four are Professor Kofi Blay, a Sociology professor at the Delaware State University in the USA, Hon. Joe Baidoo Ansah, Member of Parliament (MP) for Kwesimintsim, Mrs. Joana Quayson and one James Paa Kow Pyne.

The four plaintiffs had argued in their ex-parte motion that the defendant (Stellar Logistics) had been reckless, negligent and breached its duty to professionally store some quantity of Ammonuim Nitrate, a dangerous and hazardous chemical.

As a result, they prayed the Court to restrain the defendants, their assigns, agents and representatives from dealing in or handling, storing or transporting the dangerous chemical substance.

The plaintiffs further sought an order to authorize the appropriate regulatory and enforcement authorities to impound defendant’s ammonium nitrate stock in the country in order to test and verify its viability for their regular use.

Granting the injunction, the Court restrained the defendant company from removing the stock of the ammonium nitrate chemicals and to preserve same at the various locations where they were currently stored as stated by the plaintiffs.

The Court further ruled that it was necessary to appoint an official of the Court or other person to visit the sites and locations of the company, where the hazardous chemicals were kept for inspection and prepare a report.

Interestingly, when the case was called for hearing last Friday, Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Kofi Diaba who had earlier filed a motion for the Court to set aside its interim injunction judgment, argued as to why the Court should uphold its new motion.

But, Counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr. Anthony Matthews opposed the argument put up by his learned colleague and prayed the Court to dismiss the motion on grounds that it was incompetent and had no grounds in law.

He argued further that the motion for setting aside the Court’s earlier judgment did not come under any rule for the Court to consider it.

According to Counsel for the plaintiffs, the rule for setting aside a judgment was clear on what a party needed to do in order for a Court to set aside its judgment.

He continued that counsel for the defendant should come out clear to spell out reasons why there was the need for the Court to set aside its earlier judgment, however, in the case as argued by the defendants’ Counsel, the order was not complied with.

Consequently, Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the application was not competent and as such the Court should dismiss it entirely.

Justice U.P Derry refused to set aside his earlier judgment saying since the interim injunction expired a day after the Court sitting, it was reasonable for the defendant to file their defense in the fresh application in which the plaintiffs were seeking for an extension of the interim injunction.

The Court accordingly ordered management of the company to rather file their defense in a fresh motion.