THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE: DR. KWABENA APPENTENG, INTERESTED PARTIES; STEPHEN KWAKU ASIEDU APPENTENG AND OTHERS. [2010]DLSC4141

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE: DR. KWABENA APPENTENG, INTEREST... [2010]DLSC4141

Date	2010-02-03
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/6/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC4141

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ANSAH J.S.C.

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C.

ARYEETEY J.S.C.

GBADEGBE J.S.C.

SAM OKUDZETO FOR THE APPLICANT.

YAW OPOKU ADJAYE FOR THE INTERESTED PARTIES/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLSC4141
																																						<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>THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE: DR. KWABENA APPENTENG, INTERESTED PARTIES; STEPHEN KWAKU
ASIEDU APPENTENG AND OTHERS.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT,
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">

CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/6/2009&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;DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>SAM
OKUDZETO 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">

YAW OPOKU ADJAYE FOR THE INTERESTED
PARTIES/RESPONDENT <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">

ATUGUBA
J.S.C. (PRESIDING), ANSAH J.S.C., BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C., ARYEETEY J.S.C., AND
GBADEGBE J.S.C.<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>ATUGUBA, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>Briefly
stated, the facts of this case are as follows.&nbsp;
The applicant until recently, one of the executors of the will of the
late Samuel Christian Appenteng, on 18/4/2008 obtained, in a chain of steps,
leave for the issue of a writ of possession, in respect of one of the properties
of the estate of the said testator.&nbsp;
However the purported execution of this writ was obstructed by the
interested parties herein.&nbsp; The applicant
thereupon obtained on 22/5/2008 an order for forcible entry and arrest of any
person who would seek to obstruct the same.&nbsp;
Meanwhile the interested parties had commenced an action on the
16/12/2007 against the interested parties impeaching the purported disposal of
the disputed property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After an
initial ex-parte interim injunction on 16/5/2008, the interested parties, on
30/5/2008 brought an application on notice for the same which was adjourned to
16/10/2008 for Ruling.&nbsp; Before the Ruling
could be given, the interested parties claim per paragraph 15 of their
affidavit herein that “the applicant
herein and 4th Defendant without waiting for the ruling of the Court
on 8th day of July 2008 entered the premises threw out the
beneficiaries and forcibly removed the machines&nbsp;
being used by the said beneficiaries and thereby destroying the said
machines and used forklift to remove the machines from the premises into the
pavement and left the machines to the mercy of the sun"<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>They
therefore on 7/8/2008 filed a motion for contempt against them.&nbsp; This contempt motion was heard and the
applicants found guilty of contempt by Tanko Amadu J, a judge of the Commercial
Division of the High Court, on 20/10/2008.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As the
original proceedings of this case had been pending in the ordinary High Court,
the applicant contends that (1) Tanko Amadu J as a judge of the Commercial
Division had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the contempt application and
(2) since they acted on the orders of the High Court Tanko Amadu J was wrong in
adjudging them guilty of contempt.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is
a matter which, ex facie, could have been disposed of by this court upon
hearing the motion without adjournment.&nbsp;
However the terrain of the manner in which the judicial divisions and
judges generally, should operate in the exercise of their jurisdiction is one
that has reared its head again strongly and more and more light continues to be
shed on it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
court has held in Republic v. High Court,
Ex parte Yalley (Gyane &amp; Ottor Interested Parties) [2007-2008]SC GLR
512 that a contempt application is “a
substantive matter standing on its own as a separate cause or matter.”&nbsp; Were the matter to rest there it would appear
that Tanko Amadu J, though of the Commercial Division of the High Court, could
competently deal with the contempt application herein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
matter is however complicated by the fact that Tanko Amadu J sat on this matter
during the legal vacation upon the authority of the Chief Justice.&nbsp; Exhibit 9a attached to the interested parties’
affidavit in opposition reads:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“SCR
33c/Vol.4&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; OFFICE
OF THE JUDICIAL SECRETARY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp</main>