RANSFORD OPOKU AND OTHERS vs. LIEBHERR MINING GHANA LTD, LIEBHERR FRANCE SAS, PAUL JOOSTEN, MICHAEL FALL AND THOMAS QUARSHIE [2010]DLHC4360

RANSFORD OPOKU AND OTHERS vs. LIEBHERR MINING GHANA LTD, LIEBHERR FRANCE SAS, PA... [2010]DLHC4360

Date	2010-06-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL 16/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4360

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS.

MR. KIMATHI KUENYEHIA FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2010]DLHC4360
																																						<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 AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>LIEBHERR MINING GHANA LTD, LIEBHERR FRANCE SAS, PAUL JOOSTEN,
MICHAEL FALL AND THOMAS QUARSHIE<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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 2ND JUNE, 2010 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>NO
APPEARANCE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS.<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling is in respect of motion on notice
filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants on 23rd April 2010 praying for an
order to commit 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Respondents for contempt of court which the Respondents have opposed. The
Applicants have brought this application on five main grounds. <o:p></o:p>The first one being that the 1st
and 2nd Respondents have refused to make discovery of documents
mentioned in 1st Respondent’s affidavit filed on 25th
March 2010 in respect of notices for production filed by Plaintiffs on 25th
March, 2010 and 7th April, 2010. According to the Applicants, the
Respondents have refused to make the required discoveries because by their
affidavit dated 25th March, 2010, they have seriously lied to the
court on oath.<o:p></o:p>The second ground for the application is that
3rd Respondent has made a dishonest deposition under the authority
of the 1st and 2nd Respondents which is a serious
vilification of Plaintiffs before this court. The third ground being that the
Respondents have exhibited a falsely entitled Power of Attorney instead of
Transfer of Business. According to the Applicants this is aim at evading
obligations and obstructing or defeating justice. Their action is also
dishonest. They claim the document is incompetent because it is issued out of
jurisdiction without proper notarization and payment of stamp duty. The fourth
ground is that the 4th Respondent has sworn to an affidavit dated 9th
April, 2010 as a law clerk on behalf of and on the authority of 1st
Respondent which is calculated to vilify 1st Applicant before this
court. The Plaintiffs aver that the said vilification is unfounded.<o:p></o:p>The last ground for the application is that
whilst the current suit is pending and yet to be determined by this court, the
1st Respondent has gone ahead to suspend or terminate the employment
of the 4th Plaintiff, Francis Akpa.<o:p></o:p>According to the Applicants by the action of
the Respondents they are all in contempt of this court so they must be
committed by this court. All the Respondents have denied that they are in
contempt. They claim that none of the action complained of by the Applicants
constitutes contempt of court.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the Respondents contends that
contempt of court is a quasi criminal case so it requires that their guilt must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That is it must be proved that the
Respondents had a guilty mind in doing whatever they are alleged to have done.
Counsel for the Respondent claims that they have already made the discoveries
and that the Applicants are asking for documents they already have. They,
therefore, need not repeat same by sending the same documents to them again. He
goes on to argue that by Order 21 R 9(1) of CI 47 if even they have failed to
make discoveries, the Applicants have to come to this court to ask the court to
order the Respondents to make the discoveries and not to come by contempt of
court. This is because failure to make discoveries without a court order does
no amount to contempt of court.<o:p></o:p>On the issue of the Power of Attorney not
being valid, counsel for the Respondents argues that the issue of the validity
of the said Power of Attorney could be raised at the trial and not at this
stage of the case. There is no law which says that exhibiting an unstamped or
unnotorized document amounts to contempt of court.&nbsp; There is, therefore, nothing contemptuous
about that document since it does not interfere with the administration of
justice in any way.<o:p></o:p>On the issue of the suspension of Francis
Akpa the Respondents contend that he was suspended for a breach of
confidentiality and in accordance with the terms of his employment when he gave
out a letter received by the company to third parties without authorization
from his employers. They claim he copied and passed on to third parties details
of company employee’s personal and confidential informa</main>