Judgment Ex Tempore

Mr. D. Waithe for the Applicant/Plaintiff
Respondent/Defendant in person

Application for interim injunction - Application made ex parte - No cogent reasons advanced as to why Application made ex parte - Application dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

The applicant have filed a writ of summons indorsed with a claim base on breach of several contracts to invest moneys in a shared tourism resort business at San Pedro, Belize. The applicants' case is that the respondent failed to pay investment moneys he had agreed to pay. The applicants would like the respondent excluded from the business. Upon having the writ of summons issued, the applicant applied by ex parte summons for interim injunction order which in sum, is to restrain the respondent from interfering in the business, passing off as a representative of the business, and pledging credit of the business.

The first question that the Court put to learned counsel, Mr. D. Waithe, for the applicant, was why it was necessary to make the application ex parte. His reply was that the respondent threatened violence against the applicants, was interfering in the business and was damaging the reputation of the business and of the applicants. Counsel said that the damages being done could be uncompensatable by monetary award.

I am not persuaded that conditions exist in this case to bring an ex parte application. Counsel has informed Court that the respondent has already been served or is about to be served with the writ of summons by the police at San Pedro. There is now no need for secrecy anymore to avoid any immediate prejudicial act of the respondent. The participation of the police has also avoided any perceived violence to the applicants. In any case the respondents could be served with notice of less that two clear days if the application was regarded as urgent. The reason was given that counsel would be unavailable for a long time during the Court vacation commencing tomorrow, 1st August, 2001, in which case further damage could be done by the respondent. That cannot be reason for making the application ex parte. Non availability of counsel or attorney is not part of the subject matter of the case and cannot be reason to justify making an ex parte application. Counsel has other solution other than obtaining court order on ex parte application. This application is not a proper one to be made ex parte. The Court cannot therefore proceed to consider the merits of the application. The application is dismissed as an ex parte application. The applicants are at liberty to make the application on notice if they wish.