ASUMADU-SAKYI II vs. OWUSU AND OTHERS [1980]DLCA1564

Date	1980-11-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA1564

APALOO C.J

CHARLES CRABBE J.S.C

EDUSEI J.A.

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT.

ASUMADU-SAKYI (WITH HIM KODUA) FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[1980]DLCA1564
																																						<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" >ASUMADU-SAKYI II <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>OWUSU AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 201<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
20
NOVEMBER 1980<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

ASUMADU-SAKYI (WITH HIM KODUA) FOR THE
RESPONDENTS,<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

APALOO C.J., CHARLES CRABBE J.S.C. AND
EDUSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
C.J. delivered the ruling of the court. The applicant invokes the inherent
jurisdiction of this court to order his release from prison where he is at
present incarcerated for contempt of court. The applicant seems to have had in
connection with this matter, two spells of imprisonment. At first, he was
imprisoned on 30 March 1979. On 6 November of that year, he was released on
certain conditions which he failed to meet. He was again imprisoned on 12
February 1980 and is still in prison now. He has been in prison for seven
months on the first spell and just over nine months on the second. Accordingly,
in connection with this matter, he has been in prison for an aggregate period
of over sixteen months.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
reason proffered for the present application, is that he should be released
from prison to enable him raise the necessary funds so he can comply with the
order for whose disobedience he was incarcerated. It was also alleged, in
effect, that having been in prison for over twelve months, the purpose of his
punishment for contempt has been duly served.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents dispute that this court has an inherent jurisdiction to entertain
this matter and argues that it is incompetent. At all events, the respondents
say the applicant has not met the condition imposed for his release and is in
no position to meet it now and could not properly be released. The respondents
say the applicant should remain in prison, at least until his appeal on the
substantive matter has been disposed of but that if the court should feel
disposed to order his release, it should be on very stringent conditions.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
which prompted the order for his imprisonment are not in dispute. Judgment for
a large amount of money was given against him by the High Court, Kumasi, on, 19
October 1978. He was ordered to pay the judgment debt of just over one million
cedis within ten days of the judgment. As a result of the applicant’s failure
to make this payment, the respondents applied to the court to have him
committed for contempt. By an order dated 13 March 1979, the court ordered the
applicant to pay the sum of just over ¢776,000 on or before 27 March 1979. He
was unable to do so. Accordingly, on 30 March, he was committed to prison for
an indefinite period for contempt of court—the sting of the contempt being the
disobedience of the court’s order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would
seem that at some time subsequent to his imprisonment, he caused to be paid
just over ¢354,000. That payment fell short of the court’s order. After a
number of intermittent applications, this court, by order dated 29 October
1979, ordered his release on certain conditions. The conditions were that he
should pay ¢100,000 within two weeks of his release and the balance of the
judgment debt of just over ¢571,000 within two months thereafter. As he was
released on 6 November 1979, the two months deadline expired on 5 January 1980.
According to this court’s order, he was to be recommitted to prison if he made
default in payment. He did so default and that was why he was returned to
prison on 12 February 1980.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As we
said, the respondents object that this court has an inherent jurisdiction to
entertain this matter. We do not think it can be disputed that this is a
superior court or what in English terminology would be a court of record. Such
a court has, in England, an inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt, and
one of the punishments normally used is committal to prison. A court of record
which commits a person to prison for contempt, has an inherent jurisdiction to
release that person from prison.<o:p></o:p>