REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE AFODA AND ANOTHER [2001]DLSC1243

Date	2001-06-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLSC1243

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

ACQUAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

LAMPTEY JSC

JAMES AHENKORAH ESQ FOR THE APPLICANTS.

SOMUAH-ASAMOAH ESQ FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2001]DLSC1243
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE AFODA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 416<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JAMES
AHENKORAH, ESQ FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">SOMUAH-ASAMOAH, ESQ FOR THE RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">BAMFORD-ADDO, ACQUAH, ATUGUBA, AKUFFO AND
LAMPTEY JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Kpegah JSC. <o:p></o:p>Delivered
the ruling of the court. In the case of Russel v East Anglian Railway Co (1850)
42 ER 201, Truro LC at 206 delivered himself thus:<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">“I
have looked with care through the very numerous authorities that have been
cited, but it is not necessary for me to go through them. The result appears to
be this, that it is an established rule of this Court that it is not open to
any party to question the orders of this Court, or any process issued under the
authority of this Court, by disobedience. I know of no act which this Court may
do, which may not be questioned in a proper form, and on a proper application;
but I am of opinion that it is not competent for anyone to interfere with the
possession of a receiver, or to disobey an injunction or any other order of the
Court, on the ground that such orders were improvidently made. Parties must
take a proper course to question their validity, but while they exist they must
be obeyed. I consider the rule to be of such importance to the interests and
safety of the public, and to the due administration of justice, that it ought,
on all occasions, to be inflexibly maintained. I do not see how the Court can
expect its officers to do their duty, if they do it under the peril of
resistance, and of that resistance being justified on grounds tending to the
impeachment of the order under which they are acting.”<o:p></o:p>The
above dictum is given prominence in this ruling not only because of its
relevance but also because it adequately expresses our views on the applicable
law in the instant case. The facts in Russel v East Anglian Railway Co (supra)
are that property in possession of a receiver and manager appointed by the
court in a suit was seized by the sheriff under a writ of fi-fa. The order
appointing the receiver ought not to have been made in the first case. Contempt
proceedings were initiated against the sheriff for disturbing the possession of
the receiver and manager. It was contended on behalf of the sheriff that where
the order for the appointment of a receiver ought not to have been made, the
court should not, in the exercise of its discretion, commit the sheriff for
interfering with the possession of the receiver. This argument prompted the
Lord Chancellor to deliver the above quoted dictum.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of the instant case are that the applicants (hereinafter referred to as
the defendants) had judgment entered against them in the circuit court on 21
October 1999. The court ordered them to give up possession of a house to the
interested parties in these proceedings (hereinafter referred to as the
plaintiffs).The defendants, dissatisfied with the judgment and consequential
orders, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on 28 October 1999 and then
followed this with an application for stay of execution pending the appeal.
This application was filed on 29 October 1999. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs, also
on the same day, applied ex parte, for a writ of possession to enable them
recover possession of the house as decreed in the judgment. Pursuant to the
writ for recovery of possession, the deputy sheriff effected the ejectment of
the defendants. But believing, to use their own words, that “the exercise was
unlawful as having been carried out when the motion for stay of execution
pending appeal . . . had not been heard”, the defendants adopted self-help and
reinstated themselves in the house from which they had earlier been ejected by
the deputy sheriff. The plaintiffs then cited the defendants in the High Court
for contempt.<o:p></o:p>