REPUBLIC vs. ACQUAH AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE PERKO II [2002]DLHC1018

Date	2002-06-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLHC1018

AMUA-SEKYI FOR THE APPLICANT.

HUGHES FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2002]DLHC1018
																																						<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">ACQUAH AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE PERKO II<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005]
1 GLR 135&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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>AMUA-SEKYI
FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

HUGHES
FOR THE RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Asiamah J.
On 8 February 2002 the applicant filed a motion ex parte craving leave from
this court to bring committal proceedings for attachment of the respondents for
contempt. The basis of this application is rooted in the stated facts embedded
in a statutory statement which accompanied the application. The facts were
stated 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">“The
respondents wilfully misrepresented to the Supreme Court, in a case involving
the applicant, that the applicant had been destooled as chief of Kokoase. They
presented documents to the Supreme Court to convince the court that the
applicant has been destooled and that the first respondent had been installed
as the new chief of Kokoase when they knew these facts were false. The said
misrepresentations or documents or both are annexed hereto. The conduct of the
respondents in attempting to bring the administration of justice into disrepute
by deceit is contemptuous and a ground for attachment for contempt.”<o:p></o:p>It
is evident from these facts that the respondents who are applicants in the
Supreme Court action had represented to the Supreme Court that the applicant in
our present action had been destooled. This false allegation is amply
buttressed by two affidavits duly sworn to by the respondents. These have been
exhibited as exhibits A and C. In exhibit A, the first respondent is the
deponent and has stated in paragraph (2) thereof 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">“The
first defendant-respondent is dead and the second defendant-respondent, the
divisional chief of Kokoase was destooled on 15 September 1999. I attach as
extract from the National Register of Chiefs, Kumasi marked exhibit AA to
evidence this charge.”<o:p></o:p>The
second defendant-respondent referred to in the passage above is the applicant,
Nana Kru Perko II alias Kwaku Broni. And in exhibit C, the deponent, Nana Yaw
Badu, the second respondent had averred in paragraph (3) of his affidavit as
follows: “Kwaku Broni is not the chief of Kokoase as he was destooled by me
support (sic) by all the other kingmakers after a series of convictions by the
courts involving dishonesty and moral turpitude in 1999.” The respondents by
these facts have forcefully and unambiguously demonstrated that the applicant
had been destooled. This is the representation made to the Supreme Court in a
pending action before it. These facts have been found to be a deliberate falsehood
and it is on the basis of this malicious falsehood that the applicant has
brought this contempt action against the respondents.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the respondents has stood up against the action. He contends that in so far
as the alleged falsehood statements were made to the Supreme Court and not
before a High Court or a lower court over which the High Court has supervisory
jurisdiction, the Hi</main>