REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE AFODA AND ANOTHER

The defendants had a judgment entered against them by the Circuit Court ordering them to surrender possession of a house to the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied, the defendants appealed and applied for a stay of execution pending appeal. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte writ of possession and the deputy sheriff ejected the defendants. The defendants, believing the ejectment unlawful due to the pending stay application, forcibly re-entered the house. The plaintiffs cited the defendants for contempt, and the High Court found them guilty but adjourned sentencing. The defendants then applied to the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition to quash the contempt ruling and prohibit sentencing, arguing the writ was improperly issued during the pendency of the stay application.

JUDGEMENT Kpegah JSC. Delivered the ruling of the court. In the case of Russel v East Anglian Railway Co (1850) 42 ER 201, Truro LC at 206 delivered himself thus: “I have looked with care through the very numerous authorities that have been cited, but it is not necessary for me to go through them. The result appears to be this, that it is an established rule of this Court that it is not open to any party to question the orders of this Court, or any process issued under the authority of this Court, by disobedience. I know of no act which this Court may do, which may not be questioned in a proper form, and on a proper application; but I am of opinion that it is not competent for anyone to interfere with the possession of a receiver, or to disobey an injunction or any other order of the Court, on the ground that such orders were improvidently made. Parties must take a proper course to question their validity, but while they exist they must be obeyed. I consider the rule to be o.....