Head v Forte Nassau Beach Hotel et Al

JurisdictionBahamas
JudgeOsadebay, J.
Judgment Date19 December 1994
CourtSupreme Court (Bahamas)
Docket NumberNo. 1452 of 1994
Date19 December 1994

Supreme Court

Osadebay, J.

No. 1452 of 1994

Head
and
Forte Nassau Beach Hotel et al
Appearances

Mr Ferron Bethel for the defendants

Mrs Hanna Martin for the plaintiff holding brief for Mrs Bobbi Cooke-Mciver

Injunction - Application for discharge — Challenge to the validity of the interim injunction granted by the Court — Ansah v. Ansah [1977] AC 138 considered — Injunction granted to last until further order and with liberty to defendant to apply for discharge upon giving not less than 48 hours notice — Not of an indefinite duration and the defendant may apply anytime to have the same discharged — Defendants argue that plaintiff has not disclosed material facts but fail to show what these are — Non—compliance by defendant with order of Court — Sanction which non—compliance carries may be drastic — No reason to lift or discharge the interlocutory injunction granted earlier — Application by defendants for discharge is dismissed.

1

Osadebay, J. (Actg.): The case of Ansah v. Ansah (1977) A.C. 138 does not support the defendant's submission to the effect that the Order granting the interlocutory injunction was void ab initio. The injunction granted in this matter is not worded in the form criticized by the Court of Appeal in the Ansah case. The injunction in that case was almost an injunction for an indefinite period with no liberty to the defendant to apply to discharge it until the appeal is heard. Hence the Court felt it was wrong to grant such an interim injunction.

2

In this matter the injunction is granted to last until further order and with liberty to defendant to apply for discharge upon giving not less than 48 hours notice. It is therefore not of an indefinite duration and the defendant may apply anytime to have same discharged unlike the order in Ansah v. Ansah.

3

The injunction granted by Court is therefore not void ab, initio but may be set aside on an application, by the defendant property made. In fact in Isaacs v. Robertson [1985] 1 A.C. 97 it is stated that no order of a Superior Court is void ab initio giving the parties liberty to choose obedience or disobedience. All orders of Superior Court are valid but maybe set aside eventually on proper grounds. This is in fact what happened in Ansah v. Ansah where the Court held that the judge had no jurisdiction to issue an order which he in fact issued. I therefore, find nothing wrong with the form of the order used in this injunction, which form may be seen all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Maurice Clive Russell v Mark E. Munnings
    • Bahamas
    • Supreme Court (Bahamas)
    • 28 July 2023
    ...issue that needs to be ventilated and considered by the Court. 24 Counsel then cites the case of Head v Forte Nassau Beach Hotel et al BS 1994 SC 118, Head (1994) for the proposition that an interim injunction (which has already been granted) ought to be preserved in relation to assets unti......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT