REPUBLIC vs. AMANDI [2002]DLCA1224

Date	2002-11-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA1224

FARKYE JA

ANSAH JA

OWUSU JA

ANDREWS TETTEH FOR HEWARD-MILLS FOR THE APPELLANTS.

[2002]DLCA1224
																																						<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">AMANDI<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
2 GLR 224<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 14 NOVEMBER 2002<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

ANDREWS
TETTEH FOR HEWARD-MILLS FOR THE APPELLANTS.
<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 1.0pt 0in">

FARKYE,
ANSAH AND OWUSU JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Ansah JA. <o:p></o:p>Pursuant
to leave granted the applicant in the court below, he brought a motion on
notice for a writ to issue for the attachment or committal of the respondents.<o:p></o:p>The
basis for the relief sought was that whilst suit number L 400/97 entitled
Aluminum Enterprises Ltd v Ghabico Ltd was pending before the High Court,
Accra, the respondents wrote or caused some letters to be written to the
Minister of Trade and the Attorney-General. The letter dated 2 April 2001 was
addressed to the Minister of Trade and was headed “Petition Concerning Mohammed
Wolley, Ghabico and Tatcol.” There was also a dossier dated 20 February 2001
entitled “Appeal for Justice through Police investigation,” sent to the
Minister of Justice. The third letter was dated 24 April 2001 and was from the
Minister of Trade and Industry summoning the applicant for investigations into
the subject matter of the suit referred to above. The applicant’s case was that
the substance of the letters was contemptuous of the court for they were
calculated at prejudicing the fair trial of the respondents’ suit before the
court. They sought to usurp the jurisdiction of the court, prejudge the suit
and draw conclusions that ought to be drawn by the court itself. As a result of
those letters, the Minister of Trade had started investigations detrimental and
prejudicial to the applicant and on matters that were subject to the
jurisdiction of the court.<o:p></o:p>The
respondents denied the allegations made against them. In their affidavit in
opposition they maintained that in their letter to the Minister of Trade, they
only informed him that the matter was under police investigation. They did not
invite him to take any decision or start any line of action into any matter
pending before the court. It was the applicant who rather reported the
respondent to the police over a matter pending before the court. A ruling by
the community tribunal at the close of the case for the prosecution that the
accused therein had a case to answer was subsequently reversed on appeal to the
Regional Tribunal. Concerning the letter to the Honourable Attorney-General, it
was submitted that it only called for police investigations into matters not
before the court. The letters were not contemptuous of the court.<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial judge at the end of the trial took the firm view that the letter
to the Minister of Trade did not ask the minister to intervene in the civil
matter pending before the court. The letters only requested him to pursue the
criminal aspects of the civil matter before the court. She therefore refused
the application and mulcted the applicants in costs. It is this refusal that
has precipitated the present appeal to this court. The relief sought was for
the judgment to be reversed. The grounds of appeal were as follows:<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">“(a)
That the learned trial judge erred in law and on the facts in considering that
the petitioning of the Honorable Minister of Trade by the first and second
respondents including the letter dated 2 April 2001, exhibit MH1, did not
amount to a request for an administrative or ministerial investigation of a
matter pending before the High Court and was not therefore conduct obstructing
or calculated to prejudice the due administrative of justice. <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">(b)
That the learned High Court judge erred in law and on the facts in failing to
consider that the summons to an investigation by the Honourable Minister of
Trade i</main>