THE REPUBLIC vs. NANA KRU PERKOH II EX-PARTE: NANA JOHN ERZOAH [2002]DLCA6760

Date	2002-03-21
Suit No.	C.A NO.: 46/2000.
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA6760

BENIN J.A. (Presiding)

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.) J.A.

OWUSU-ANSAH J.A

[2002]DLCA6760
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA KRU
PERKOH II<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: NANA
JOHN ERZOAH<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">C.A
NO.: 46/2000.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 21ST MARCH, 2002<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">

BENIN J.A. (Presiding), AKOTO-BAMFO
(MRS.) J.A., OWUSU-ANSAH J.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>BENIN, J.A <o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case are as follows. On 20th March 1999, seven persons who
claimed to be Kingmakers of the Gyase Stool Family of Kokoase in the Western
Region of Ghana filed what was termed ‘Statement of Plaintiff's case’ before
the Judicial Committee of the Wassa Fiase Traditional Council (WFTC) at Tarkwa
seeking the destoolment of the respondent/appellant herein as the Chief of the
said town of Kokoase. During the pendency of that matter, the plaintiffs
therein applied for an order of interim injunction against the appellant herein
before the Traditional Council seeking to restrain him "from acting as the
Chief of Kokoase or parading as such pending the hearing and final
determination of the petition herein and for the appointment of the Ebusuapanyin
as the acting Chief........” It was filed on July 27, 1999. The record shows
that the appellant was served with a copy of this application on the 28th of
July 1999. On the 11th of August 1999 the applicant/respondent herein applied
to the High Court, Sekondi by motion ex-parte for leave to serve contempt
proceedings on the respondent. The reasons/grounds for the application are
contained in the affidavit in support, and they provide: <o:p></o:p>"5.
That with the service of a motion for interim injunction against him, I am
advised by Counsel and verily believe the same to be true that the respondent
will cease performing any chiefly duties e.g. collecting any money legitimately
due to the stool and its people. <o:p></o:p>6.
That despite the existing motion for interim injunction, respondent is beating
gong gong proclaiming that he has destooled all customary chiefly office
holders of Kokoase and saying that he cannot be destooled by the Kingmakers or
any one else. <o:p></o:p>7.
The respondent without the knowledge of his elders has collected and pocketed
¢17 million being compensation paid by Bogoso Gold Limited for the desecration
of tombs, graves and ancestral burial grounds." <o:p></o:p>From
the above depositions, it is clear that the sole legal basis for the
application was that the appellant continued to perform the functions of a
chief notwithstanding the service on him of an application for interim
injunction seeking to restrain him from performing any such function. In other
words the respondent's contention was that the mere filing of an application
for an order of interim injunction was sufficient reason to prevent a
respondent from continuing to perform as a Chief. And that he commits contempt
of court if he continues to exercise the functions of a chief from the moment
the application is served on him. <o:p></o:p>For
his part the Appellant resisted the application on these grounds contained in
his affidavit in opposition: <o:p></o:p>"4.
That I am advised by counsel that the grounds the applicants are relying on to
have me committed for contempt have no basis in law. <o:p></o:p>5.
That no petition has been filed at the Traditional Council." <o:p></o:p>The
arguments at the hearing were made around the points raised in the affidavits.
It was the contention of Counsel for the Applicant/Respondent that by
continuing to parade as a chief despite the service of the application for
interim injunction on him, the Appellant was showing disrespect to the court.
For his part, Counsel for the Appellant argued that there was no legal basis
for the application since no action was pending before the Traditional Council.
Moreover the Appellant had not disobeyed any court order hence the mere filing
and service of an application for interim injunction was not sufficient reason
to stop a chief from performing the functions of his office. <o:p></o:p>The
trial court's ruling was very brief and I can reproduce same here with ease for
its full force and effect. It reads: "The photographs exhibited show the
respondent sitting in state as a chief, something he had been asked not to do.
A motion had been served on him from desisting to act as a chief, and once the
motion had been filed, he had to desist from acting as a Chief. Counsel for the
respondent argued to the contrary, but he did not quote a case to support his
stand that a mere filing of a motion did not preclude the respondent from
acting as a Chief. I grant the application. I order that the respondent be
attached for contempt, and I sentence him to prison for 1 day, and order him to
execute a bond of ¢200,000.00 with one surety to be of good behaviour for six
months or in default 2 months I.H.L. To stop further moneys from going into the
hands of the respondent, I order the Abusuapanyin Yaw Badu, Head of Family of
the Applicant and the Respondent to be in charge of monies which would have
been due to the respondent as a C</main>