THE REPUBLIC vs. MICHAEL CONDUAH CONDUAH VI ELMINA TRADITIONAL [2011]DLCA5700

Date	2011-12-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/60/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA5700

MARFUL-SAU JA –PRESIDING

HONYENUGA JA

DENNIS ADJEI JA

EX-PARTE: SUPI GEORGE ASMAH...... APPLICANT/APPELLANT

[2011]DLCA5700
																																						<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>MICHAEL CONDUAH [RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT] CONDUAH VI ELMINA TRADITIONAL<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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.H1/60/2011&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: 7TH DECEMBER,
2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNCIL:<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">

EX-PARTE:
SUPI GEORGE ASMAH...... APPLICANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DENNIS ADJEI: <o:p></o:p>This
appeal is against the decision of the High Court; Cape Coast delivered on 26th October,
2010. The brief facts of the case are that on 27th June, 2001, the High Court
Cape Coast made an order compelling the parties herein to meet with the
representatives from the Elmina Traditional Council to draw up a programme of
action to enable the people of Elmina to celebrate their festival with dignity,
pomp and style. The Court further granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction
restraining the Respondent herein from exercising all public functions as the
Chief of Elimina until his status as Omanhene (Paramount Chief of Elmina) has
been fully and finally determined by the appropriate forum on 15th July, 2002.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondent herein was committed for contempt for breaching the Order restraining
him from performing any public function as Omanhene until his status as
Omanhene had been fully and finally determined. The Respondent was ordered by
the High Court to:<o:p></o:p>1.
File and serve an undertaking not to perform any public function as Omanhene
until his status has been fully and finally determined<o:p></o:p>2.
To pay a fine of GH¢500.00 and was further ordered to pay cost of GH¢200.00 to
the Applicant.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondent appealed against the decision committing him for contempt on 15th
July, 2002. He filed an application to the High Court differently constituted to
stay the execution of the Order committing him for contempt. The High Court on
31 st July, 2001 stayed the execution of the Order until the final
determination of the appeal.<o:p></o:p>On
30 th April, 2010, the High Court Cape Coast differently constituted again convicted
the Respondent herein and 3 other persons for contempt for treating with
contempt the Order of the High Court dated 27 th June, 2001. In that suit, the
Respondent herein permitted one Nana Conduah to swear to him in his capacity as
the Omanhene of Elmina. The thrust of the contempt application which has generated
this appeal is that in spite of the Order of the High Court dated 27 th June,
2001 restraining the Respondent from parading himself as the Omanhene of Elmina
until that position is resolved, on 6 th July, 2010 the Respondent rode in
palanquin and performed public functions as the<o:p></o:p>Omanhene
of Edina Elmina Traditional Area.<o:p></o:p>The
High Court dismissed the application for contempt on the grounds that the Order
which the Respondent was said to have violated was a nullity as it was made by
the High Court which lacks jurisdiction in cause or matters affecting chieftaincy.
The Appellant dissatisfied with the judgment appealed against it to this court.<o:p></o:p>The
Appellant filed one ground of appeal. It is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“the learned trial Judge erred in law
when he arrived at the conclusion that the application for contempt of court of
the Respondent is a matter affecting chieftaincy for which he has no jurisdiction”.<o:p></o:p>The
Appellant in his written submission argued that the Respondent has treated with
contempt the Order of the High Court dated 27 th June, 2001. The second part of
the Order restrained the Respondent from exercising all public functions as
chief until his status as Omanhene has been fully and finally determined by the
appropriate forum. The Respondent on the other hand is of the view that the
Court Order dated 27 th June, 2001 was reviewed by the court and according to
him, Exhibit S1 is the Order for review. This is borne out by paragraph 8 of the
Affidavit in Opposition.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondent in his written submission stated as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“Your Lordship, the application is based on
Exhibit S1 and S2. A careful look at the said Exhibits will show that they both
have the same suit number motion, number 35/2000 and the Order of Injunction
dated 27 th June, 2001. Exhibit S2 is repeated in the opening paragraph 1 of
Exhibit S1 which is undated but is amended in the final Order of the court to
read:-<o:p></o:p>‘The Respondent, within48 hours of
this ruling is to file and serve an undertaking not to perform any further
function as Omanhene until his suit has been fully and finally determined… what
is more, my Lords, the Orders contained in Exhibit S1 were stayed by the Order of
his Lordship K. K. Acquaye, J. (as he then was) in his ruling at page 32 of the
record including the Order that the Respondent file and serve an undertaking
not to act as Omanhene at public places”.<o:p></o:p>The
above submissions are misleading and I have to properly address</main>