RANSFORD OPOKU & 10 ORS. vs. LIEBHERR MINING GHANA LTD. & ANOR. [2010]DLHC4359

Date	2010-10-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL 16/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4359

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

RANSFORD OPOKU REPRESENTS HIMSELF AND THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS

MR. KIMATHI KUENYEHIA FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2010]DLHC4359
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">RANSFORD
OPOKU &amp; 10 ORS.<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>LIEBHERR MINING GHANA LTD. &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION),
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">

SUIT NO.
INDL 16/2009&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: 29TH OCTOBER, 2010 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>RANSFORD OPOKU REPRESENTS HIMSELF AND THE
OTHER PLAINTIFFS<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">

MR. KIMATHI
KUENYEHIA FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.<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">

KWABENA
ASUMAN-ADU, JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling is in respect of motion filed by the 1st
Plaintiff/Applicant for an Interlocutory Order to compel the
Defendants/Respondents to release Applicant’s year 2009 accumulated provident
fund filed on 9th September, 2010. The application was accompanied
by a four paragraph Affidavit and a Statement of Case. The application was,
however, opposed by the Defendants/Respondents on the main ground that the
application is incompetent before the Court since this Court’s order against
the Plaintiffs has not been complied with.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The records of proceedings of the case show that on
23rd April, 2010 the Plaintiffs herein filed a Motion for an Order
to Commit the Defendants herein and three other persons for Contempt of Court.
On 2nd July, 2010, this Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs
of GH¢1,000.00 against the Plaintiffs. The Court further ordered that the
Plaintiffs should pay the GH¢1,000.00 costs and all other costs awarded in the
case before the Plaintiffs could file any other process in this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In spite of this order, the Applicant has gone
ahead to file this application when the said order has not been complied with
and has not been set aside. It must be noted that until the order is set aside,
the order is still effective. So the action of the Plaintiffs to disregard the
order is dangerous, proposition and is contrary to settled legal authorities.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The position of the law is that, whether judgment,
or orders or decisions of a Court are null and void, or whatever, they remain
effective until so declared or set aside. See the case of Republic vrs High Court, Accra, Ex-parte Afoda [2001-2002] SCGLR 768
in which it was held that;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“the fact that an
order of or a process from a Court of competent jurisdiction is perceived and
considered void or erroneous, should not give a party who is affected by the
order, or to whom the process is directed, the slightest encouragement to
disobey it;…only to turn round to justify the said disobedience by the fact
that the order ought not to have been made or the process issued in the first
place.&nbsp; The proper thing to do is to
either obey or … apply to have it set aside.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The said case goes on to state that;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“As a matter of
public policy, it is important that the authority of the Court and the sanctity
of its process be maintained at all times. It is too dangerous to give a
litigant and his counsel the right to decide which orders or process of the
court are lawful and therefore deserving of obedience and if not, must be
obeyed. An order or process of a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be
impeached by disobedience.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>