REPUBLIC vs. ALHASSAN; EX PARTE ABBEY [1988]DLHC658

Date	1988-10-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLHC658

BENIN J

T. CUDJOE FOR THE APPLICANT.

M. MUMUNI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1988]DLHC658
																																						<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>ALHASSAN; EX PARTE ABBEY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 139<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:
25
OCTOBER 1988<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">

T. CUDJOE FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BENIN J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for attachment for contempt. The facts relied on for the
application are sufficiently contained in the affidavit in support deposed to
by Alfred Bikpe, marketing officer of N.I.C. Motor Bike Co. of which the
applicant is the managing director, and I set them out in extenso:<o:p></o:p>“3 That
on 13 April 1988 the respondent herein by his solicitor issued a writ of
summons accompanied<o:p></o:p>by a
statement of claim against the applicant herein in the suit number 16/88 in
this court for: <o:p></o:p>(a) an
order requiring the defendant to deliver up to the plaintiff 40 bicycles, ten
mopeds, another ten mopeds and five motorcycles as contained in a purported
agreement exhibit A, in the statement of claim; <o:p></o:p>(b)
damages for breach of contract; and<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c) In the alternative an account for moneys
had and received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiff. 4. That on the
same day an order of attachment was made by this honorable court restraining
the applicants or their managing director form disposing of the items pending
the determination of the suit; and a further order that the managing director
appear in court and show cause why he should not furnish sufficient security
for any judgment and costs that may be awarded against him in the suit. 5. That
on 16 May 1988 following an application by counsel this court set aside the
order of attachment and ordered that the applicants take over the items and be
at liberty to deal with them as they deem fit; the court also ordered that the
sum of ¢1,000,000 deposited by the applicants in court be security for any
judgment that may be awarded against them and another ¢50,000 deposited in
court be security for costs of the attachment . . . 8. That on 16 May 1988 this
court disallowed a summons for summary judgment and ordered that the suit be
tried. 9. That on 18 May 1988 the solicitor for the respondent filed a notice
of appeal against the ruling of this court as delivered on 16 May 1988 and a
stay of execution. 10. That on 15 June 1988 the motion for stay of execution
was struck off for want of prosecution. 11. That on 14 July 1988 while I was
supplying some of the items in exhibit A to a customer the respondent made a
complaint to the District Crime Officer, Ghana Police, Tamale that I was
dealing with goods attached by order of this court. 12. That following the
complaint I was arrested with the customer and the items were detained at the Police
Station, Tamale. 13. That I sent for my counsel who brought certified true
copies of the court’s orders relating to the court’s vacation of the attachment
order to the police officers who released the items. 14. That the respondent
said he would see his counsel for advice. 15. That despite the indication that
he would see his counsel for advice the respondent on 23 July 1988 again made a
report to the Regional Crime Officer, Ghana Police, Tamale that he had an
agreement with the applicants which entitled him to the items in exhibit A and
that even though the court had attached the items pending determination of the
suit the applicants were nevertheless dealing with the goods in violation of
the court’s order. 16. That I was invited to the police station ... 17. That
our counsel appeared and while attempting to show the certified true copy of
the court’s orders to the crime officer the respondent brought out a copy of
exhibit A and denied flagrantly that this court had adjudicated over the matter
of the motion for summary judgment and vacated the order of attachment; as a
result the applicant was put in custody.. . 19. That the respondent also made a
complaint to the Investigations Committee of the Northern Region Secretariat of
the C.D.R., Tamale on this same matter a few days after the court’s ruling on
16 May 1988 alleging that the applicants were dealing with goods attached by
this court as a result of which the C.D.R. invited me to a hearing which ended
when I told them that this court was seised of the matter. 20. That it is clear
that the respondent’s conduct in all the above instances of complaint to
authorities outside of the court is deliberately calculated to injure the applicants
and frustrate the orders of this court made on 16 May 1988 and thus make them
ineffective.<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">21. That
I am advised and verily believe the same to be true that the respondent’s
conduct had brought and continues to bring the authority and administration of
the law as held by this court on 16 May 1988 into disrepute and is
disrespectful to this court, and constitutes a contempt of this court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>