REPUBLIC vs. BEALEE ALIAS EKUMSA V; EX PARTE ANNOR III [2004]DLCA1019

Date	2004-07-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA1019

OWUSU JA

ANIM JA

QUAYE JA

A ARVOH MENSAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

ARMAH-TETTEH FOR HAIZEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2004]DLCA1019
																																						<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">BEALEE ALIAS EKUMSA V; EX PARTE ANNOR III<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005] 1 GLR 435<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>A ARVOH MENSAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

ARMAH-TETTEH FOR HAIZEL FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

OWUSU, ANIM AND QUAYE JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Quaye JA delivered the first judgment at the invitation of Owusu JA. This
appeal centrally turns on whether an application for attachment for contempt
arising from disobedience of a judgment of a court is cognisable under Order
59, r 21(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A). The said
rule states:<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">“(2) This rule applies to cases where the contempt is committed—<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) in connection with proceedings to which this Order relates;<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">&nbsp;(b) in connection with any
proceedings in Court, except where the contempt is committed in facie curiae or
consists of disobedience to an order of the Court;...”<o:p></o:p>(The emphasis is partly mine.)<o:p></o:p>The parties herein are opposing factions in the chieftaincy affairs
at Bonyere in the Nzema District of the Western Region of Ghana. The
applicant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) in this
appeal, filed a motion ex parte in the High Court for leave to attach the
respondent-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) for contempt
found upon his alleged disobedience of the decision and orders issued from the
Court of Appeal on 21 April 1975 in the suit entitled, Agyiliha v Tayee [1975]
1 GLR 433, CA. The said judgment, in effect, declared the respondent‘s
Asamangama family to be the rightful chiefs of Bonyere as against the
appellant’s Adahonle family. By virtue of the said decision of the Court of
Appeal in 1975, the respondent’s predecessor on the stool, Nana Nyamekeh Annor
II, who was enstooled in 1960, continued his reign without let until he died on
16 August 2002. Subsequent to that the respondent was enstooled chief of
Bonyere on 16 November 2002 in succession. Shortly thereafter, precisely on 28
November 2002, the first appellant was enstooled and set up as a rival chief to
the Bonyere stool. It was this development which was in direct wilful
disobedience of the Court of Appeal judgment of 1975 supra that occasioned the
filing of the contempt application by the respondent in the High Court pursuant
to leave granted by that court on 28 March 2003.<o:p></o:p>The record of appeal shows that the third appellant filed a
composite affidavit in opposition to the pursuant notice for himself and on
behalf of the rest of the appellants on 11 April 2003. In view of the issues
raised, the floodgates were, so to speak, opened for amendments, and the filing
of several supplementary affidavits to which numerous exhibits were attached on
both sides. The ensuing issues which are, in any case, not material for consideration
in this appeal led the trial judge to seek the intervention of the experts from
the police forensic laboratory by referring some of the exhibits to them for
analysis and confirmation of their authenticity. Upon the submission of their
report to the court, the expert from the police forensic laboratory testified
before the court as the first court witness and was subjected to
cross-examination by respective counsel for the parties. That was on 4
September 2003. The court then adjourned to 16 October 2003 for counsel to make
their submissions.<o:p></o:p>As it turned out, the second appellant failed to attend court on
the adjourned day; hence the application was further adjourned until 21 October
2003 for both counsel to complete their arguments. On the said 21 October 2003
when the court was ready to hear the submissions, albeit the second appellant
was again absent, counsel for the appellants applied to raise preliminary legal
objections to the procedure of the application. He raised two main issues, to
wit (a) that the contempt application had been brought long after judgment had
been delivered in the Agyiliha v Tayee case (supra) which was given on 25 April
1975; and (b) that the application cannot be brought under Order 59, r 21(2) of
LN 140A because the</main>