Court Throws Out CSRM Writ

An Accra Fast Track High Court presided over by His Lordship Justice Edward Amoakoh Asante has dismissed an injunction brought before it by a Tema based NGO, Corporate Social Responsibility Movement (CSRM) restraining Pioneer Food Cannery [PFC] from the construction of an Offal Recycling Plant at its premises in Tema without obtaining requisite permits from the authorities. In dismissing the application the Presiding Judge said the plaintiffs’ application has no merit and therefore awarded One Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 1,000.00) cost in favor of the defendants (PFC). The Judge explained that by Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2004 C 147, the courts grant interim injunctions in certain situation based on the discretion that must be exercised judiciously saying, ‘at this stage, the law enjoins me to ascertain whether plaintiffs have a prima facie case or whether or not their action is frivolous’. He said further that the legal authorities to see to the construction and operation of the plant are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Tema Metropolitan Assembly (TMA) have both issued the requisite permits to PFC having thoroughly studied all its proposals. Consequently, the "fears anticipated by the CSRM which was presented by Richter Nii Amarfio are not imminent and therefore there is no justification for this application," he said. The plaintiffs have in their application for the issuance of the writ stated as a basis for their application that PFC had commenced the construction of an offal recycling plant to recycle its own by-products into fish meal without first obtaining the requisite permits. The applicants have also stated that the waste products will affect the aqua and fauna in the lagoon and thereby affecting the very existence of the Chemu Lagoon. In opposing the application, counsel for the defendants contended that their construction was legal because they have all the requisite permits including the environmental assessment approved by the EPA and therefore their construction will never be hazardous as was being alleged by the plaintiffs. Defense counsel further stated that the plaintiffs‘ action was frivolous and that they have no prima facie case as to cause the court to entertain the application by them. Find attached below a copy of the Ruling... View Attached Document >>