A major courtroom victory has brought a swift pause to the promotion and commercialization of “Supercash Games” in Ghana, following an interlocutory injunction granted by the High Court of Justice sitting in Accra.
Paperclip Investments Ltd. has successfully obtained a restraint order against Sparkhouse Promotions Limited and some individuals, blocking them from continuing any commercial activities involving “Supercash Games” products—an outcome that signals strong judicial support for intellectual property protection and accountability in disputes over proprietary software.
The individuals include: Kofi Gilbert – 2nd Defendant/Respondent, Selom Coco Ahadji – 3rd Defendant/Respondent, Emmanuel Ofori Bamfo – 4th Defendant/Respondent, Terence Asare – 5th Defendant/Respondent, and George – 6th Defendant/Respondents, who according to the Court, are hereby restrained, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, assigns, privies or any person(s) acting under their authority, from proceeding with, participating in, promoting, launching, distributing, or commercializing the infringing products collectively branded as “Supercash Games” (including “7 Cups” and “Reveal Scratch for Win”), or any other product derived from the Plaintiff/Applicant’s proprietary software, pending the final determination of this suit.”
The injunction, issued on 30th April 2026, emerged from a suit that has been pending since November 2025. The case, Paperclip Investments Ltd. v. Sparkhouse Promotions Limited & 6 Others, was heard under Suit No. GJ/CM/RPC/0041/2026 before the High Court of Justice, Commercial Division 3. Rather than waiting for the final determination of the dispute, the Court intervened at the interlocutory stage to preserve the position of the parties and prevent further alleged infringement while the core issues are adjudicated.
At the centre of the Court’s order is a clear directive: Sparkhouse Promotions Limited and the named individuals are restrained from proceeding with, participating in, promoting, launching, distributing, or commercializing the products collectively branded as “Supercash Games.” The restraint explicitly covers the games identified in the application, including “7 Cups” and “Reveal Scratch for Win,” and also extends to any other product described as derived from Paperclip Investments Ltd.’s proprietary software. The Court further made it explicit that the injunction applies broadly—whether through the defendants themselves or through their servants, agents, assigns, privies, or any persons acting under their authority—underscoring that the Court’s intention is to prevent workarounds that would undermine the order.
In a move that heightens the impact of the injunction, the High Court also issued restrictive orders affecting regulatory authorization and promotional licensing. The Court directed that the National Lottery Authority, listed as the 7th Defendant/Respondent, is restrained from granting, issuing, renewing, endorsing, participating in, or promoting any licence, launch, or promotional activity connected with “Supercash Games” or any other infringing product, pending the final outcome of the suit. This element of the order emphasizes that the matter is not limited to marketing agents and product promoters alone, but also touches how approval processes can influence the commercial circulation of contested intellectual property.
Paperclip Investments Ltd. explained that the litigation was initiated to protect its proprietary software and intellectual property rights under the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690). The company positioned the injunction as more than a procedural step—it is a protective measure designed to safeguard the integrity of its development work and ensure that asserted rights are not diluted through continued commercial exploitation during ongoing legal proceedings.
A critical theme in Paperclip’s explanation is public clarity and legitimacy of ownership. The company highlighted that, in disputes involving former partners and contested proprietary development, the public can be misled about who truly owns the intellectual property behind the games. By granting the interlocutory injunction, the Court has effectively limited the spread of the contested products until the underlying dispute is resolved at final hearing, reducing the likelihood of continued confusion around authorship and ownership rights.
Paperclip Investments Ltd. further stated that Ghana’s copyright framework places responsibilities not only on creators but also on corporate entities, partnerships, and individuals who may assist, participate in, facilitate, or otherwise contribute to infringement. From the company’s perspective, this means that those who help drive commercialization—directly or indirectly—must recognize that legal accountability can extend beyond the most visible promoters to the wider network that supports licensing, distribution, and public launch efforts.
The company also made its stance unmistakable: it will pursue available legal remedies, including both civil and criminal options, if necessary, and is prepared to escalate the case to higher judicial levels. With the injunction remaining in force pending the final determination of the suit, the dispute now moves forward toward the substantive hearing, where the parties will be required to establish their rights, defenses, and legal positions before the Court.
For more information, Paperclip Investments Ltd. indicated that its legal team is led by Samuel Kissiedu, Esq. The ruling stands as a strong statement that Ghana’s courts are willing to intervene decisively to protect proprietary software, preserve legal rights during litigation, and prevent commercialization that may rest on disputed intellectual property.
