REPUBLIC vs. MOFFAT AND OTHERS; EX PARTE ALLOTEY [1971]DLHC10255

Date	1971-07-11
Suit No.	2 G L R 391 - 403
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC10255

ABBAN J.

JOE -REINDORF (HAROLD DARKO AND R. D. AMOFA WITH HIM) FOR THE APPLICANT.

H. P. SWANIKER (JONATHAN ARTHUR J. ALLOTEI COFIE AND F. SWANIKER WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[1971]DLHC10255
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MOFFAT AND OTHERS; EX
PARTE ALLOTEY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm;">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOE -REINDORF (HAROLD DARKO AND R. D. AMOFA
WITH HIM) FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

H.&nbsp; P. SWANIKER (JONATHAN ARTHUR, J. ALLOTEI
COFIE AND F. SWANIKER WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This application was brought under Order 59,
r. 21 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A),
calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be attached for
contempt.&nbsp; The rule reads as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"21. (1) The procedure in applications
for attachment for contempt of court in the cases to which this rule applies
shall be the same as in applications for an order of mandamus and rules 2, 4, 5
and 6 of this Order shall apply accordingly to applications for attachment, so
far as they are applicable:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Provided that the issue of the writ of
attachment shall not be ordered by a Judge in Chambers, and the notice of
motion shall be personally served unless the Court or a Judge dispenses with
such service.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(2) This rule applies to cases where the
contempt is committed—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(a) in connection with proceedings to which
this Order relates;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) in connection with any proceedings in
Court, except where the contempt is committed in facie curiae or consists of
disobedience to an order of the Court;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c) in connection with proceedings in an
inferior court."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;From the affidavits filed in this
application, the following material facts are not in dispute.&nbsp; The parties, that is, the applicant and the
four respondents, belong to the same family and they are elders of the Sempe
stool, Accra.&nbsp; On the death of one Nii
Tetteh Kpeshie II (the occupant of the said stool) the present applicant, who
had been the acting mankralo of Sempe, was asked to act as Sempe manche,
pending the installation of a new manche.&nbsp;
There seemed to have been peace and unity in the family until the time
came for the election of the new manche to occupy the vacant stool.&nbsp; From that time onwards, the family split into
two factions.&nbsp; One faction was led by the
applicant, S. P. Allotey, and the other group by the first respondent, Nii
Kpakpo Moffat.&nbsp; The applicant and his
group supported one Charles D. A. L. Pappoe as their candidate to occupy the
Sempe stool, while the first respondent and his group supported the candidature
of one James Allotey.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;With the assistance of certain members of the
Ga Traditional Council, the Chief Executive for Greater Accra made attempts to
settle the dispute and to bring the two groups together so that they could
agree on one of the two rival candidates to occupy the said stool.&nbsp; An ad hoc committee was appointed consisting,
mainly, of members of the said traditional council.&nbsp; This ad hoc committee inquired into the
dispute, but it appears the recommendations made by the committee were not
acceptable to the applicant and his group.&nbsp;
Because, according to the applicant, the said committee did not do its
work in accordance with the principles of natural justice.&nbsp; The applicant therefore requested the
authorities to appoint an impartial [p.395] Committee to rehear the case, in
that so far as the applicant was concerned, the question as to which of the two
candidates should be installed Sempe manche was still to be decided.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The committee which the applicant asked the
authorities to appoint had not yet been appointed.&nbsp; But in the meantime, the applicant realised
that the respondents were making feverish preparations to outdoor their
candidate, James Allotey, as the Sempe manche.&nbsp;
Consequently, on 23 April 1971 the applicant filed an ex parte motion
under Order 59, r. 2 (1) and (2) of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954, asking for leave to apply for an order of prohibition against the
four respondents and to restrain them from outdooring the said James
Allotey.&nbsp; The applicant's main ground was
that the intended outdooring, if carried out, would prejudice any future constitutional
settlement, and that until a properly constituted committee or body resolved
the dispute as to which of the two candidates was the proper person to be the
Sempe manche, the respondents should be prohibited from carrying out the
intended outdooring ceremony.<o:p></o:p>