REPUBLIC vs. YEBOAH; EX PARTE NYEMITEI AND ANOTHER [1988]DLHC2312

Date	1988-07-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLHC2312

LUTTERODT J.

JOE REINDORF (WITH HIM FUI TSIKATA) FOR THE APPLICANTS.

FRANK SAWYERR FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1988]DLHC2312
																																						<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>YEBOAH;
EX PARTE NYEMITEI AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 587<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOE
REINDORF (WITH HIM FUI TSIKATA) FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

FRANK
SAWYERR FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF LUTTERODT J.<o:p></o:p>On 22
October 1987, the chairman of the board of directors and a director
respectively of Accra Hearts of Oak Sporting Club caused a writ of summons to
be issued on their behalf and on behalf of all other directors of the club
against Nana Wereko Ampem II alias E. N. Omaboe and Nana Akoto Djan alias Harry
Sawyerr who are also very important personalities in the club. While this suit
No 2917/87 is pending, a number of articles have been published in a local
sports newspaper known as Africa Sports. Of particular importance is the issue
No. 101 and dated 2-9 May.<o:p></o:p>The
present applicants being highly aggrieved by those publications, have brought
this application praying for an order of attachment of the respondent who is
managing director of the said newspaper. What then is the nature of the
applicants’ case? They complain bitterly of certain portions of those
publications which the applicants describe as “couched in vituperative
language, highly abusive and so extremely prejudicial, they amount to contempt
of court.” The respondents on the other hand have resisted the application on
the main ground that the articles do not refer to the applicants.<o:p></o:p>I shall
deal more fully with the arguments later, but I shall first briefly touch on
the common law principles of what amounts to contempt of court. Halsbury’s Laws
of England (3rd ed.), Vol. 8 indicates two forms of contempt—civil and
criminal. Broadly put this latter class consists of words or acts which
obstruct or tend to obstruct the due administration of justice. The main
difference between these two forms of contempt lies in the fact that while
civil contempts have to deal with disobedience to a judgment or other processes
of the court and so involve a private injury, a criminal contempt is in the
nature of public injury and so seeks more to protect the public interest. Lord
Diplock in the celebrated case of Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.
[1974] A.C. 273, H.L has in his judgment brought out the same distinctions very
clearly.<o:p></o:p>This
case, which incidentally was relied on by both counsel, as well as they did
Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd ed.), Vol. 8, identifies different kinds of
criminal contempt. There is contempt in the face of the court, and paragraph 5
at page 5 of Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd ed.), Vol. 8 sets out the
circumstances under which such contempt is committed.<o:p></o:p>For our
purposes, as the application clearly shows, we are more concerned with that
type the learned author describes as “contempt out of court by speech and
writing”: see paragraph 8 of Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd ed.), Vol. 8. In
the Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. case (supra) the law lords had
the opportunity of exhaustively examining the general principles of the law on
this type of contempt of court. From those two authorities we learn that this
contempt of court takes different forms. It may, as stated in Halsbury’s Laws
of England (3rd ed.), Vol. 8, pp. 67 range from:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“...scandalising
the court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind
in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard ... Any act done or
writing published which is calculated to bring a court or a judge into
contempt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of
justice or the lawful process of the court, is a contempt of court.”<o:p></o:p>The
position of the law lords in the Times Newspapers case (supra) at 274 is not
different. It was held in that case, and so thereby identifying other types of
criminal contempt, “that it was contempt of court to publish material which
prejudged the issue of pending litigation or was likely to cause public
prejudgment of that issue.” Again Lords Diplock and Simon of Glaisdale put the
matter beyond doubt and brought out other types by holding, as stated in the
headnote at 274 that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Contempt
of court in a civil action is not restricted to conduct calculated to prejudice
a fair trial by influencing the tribunal or the witnesses, but extends to
conduct calculated to inhibit suitors from availing themselves of their
constitutional right to have their legal rights determined by the courts by
holding them up to public obloquy for doing so or exposing them to public and
prejudicial discussion of the merits or the facts of the case before the action
had been disposed of in due course of law.”<o:p></o:p>