REPUBLIC vs. JEHU-APPIAH AND OTHERS; EX PARTE FORSON [1980]DLHC1631

Date	1980-03-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1631

OKUNOR J.

A. H. SACKEYFIO FOR THE APPLICANT.

ASUMADU-SEKYI WITH HIM ENNIN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLHC1631
																																						<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>JEHU-APPIAH AND OTHERS; EX PARTE FORSON<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 398<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:
27 MARCH 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">

A. H. SACKEYFIO FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

ASUMADU-SEKYI WITH HIM ENNIN 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">

OKUNOR J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OKUNOR J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application brought under Order 59, r. 21 (1) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), calling upon the respondents to show cause
why they should not be attached for contempt of court. The said rule provides:<o:p></o:p>“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: 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The cases
to which this rule applies are listed in sub-rule (2) which reads:<o:p></o:p>“(2) This
rule applies to cases where the contempt is committed—<o:p></o:p>(a) in
connection with proceedings to which this Order relates; <o:p></o:p>(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>(c) in
connection with proceedings in an inferior court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
material facts as disclosed by the affidavit supporting the application for the
order of attachment and indeed confirmed by material in the court docket are
that on 14 August 1979, the applicant sealed a writ of summons in this court in
which the following claims were indorsed:<o:p></o:p>“(a) A
declaration that as between the plaintiff and the second defendant, the
plaintiff is the proper person according to custom and the regulations of the
church of the Musama Disco Christo Church (M.D.C.C.) to succeed Prophetess
Matholmua Jehu Appiah; <o:p></o:p>(b)
Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from performing any functions
or duties performed by the national queenmother of the said church.”<o:p></o:p>Two days
later, she followed up the writ with a motion on notice:<o:p></o:p>“for an
order of interim injunction restraining the defendants herein from having
anything to do with regards to the succession case herein on the grounds set
out in the supporting affidavit attached pending the hearing and the final
determination of this case.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>