THE REPUBLIC vs. MICHAEL CONDUAH (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) EX-PARTE: SUPI GEORGE ASMAH (APPLICANT/APPELLANT) [2011]DLCA7933

THE REPUBLIC vs. MICHAEL CONDUAH (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) EX-PARTE: SUPI GEORGE A... [2011]DLCA7933

Date	2011-12-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/60/11
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA7933

MARFUL-SAU JA (PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA JA

DENNIS ADJEI JA

[2011]DLCA7933
																																						<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><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL
CONDUAH<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: SUPI
GEORGE ASMAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/60/11&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 7TH DECEMBER, 2011<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MARFUL-SAU
JA (PRESIDING), HONYENUGA JA, DENNIS ADJEI JA<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JA:- This
appeal is against the ruling of the High Court sitting at Cape Coast on the 20th
October 2010. The facts of this case are that on the 26/7/10 the applicant/
appellant herein filed a motion to commit the respondent for contempt. The
affidavit in support of the motion disclosed that there was pending in the Central
Region House of Chiefs a petition seeking to destool the respondent as the
Omanhene of Edina Traditional Area. The appellant deposed that the High Court,
Cape Coast in a ruling dated the 27/6/2001 restrained the respondent from
exercising any public function as Chief until his status as Omanhene has been
fully and finally determined by the appropriate body. This order was annexed to
the motion as Exhibit S2.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant also annexed to the motion a ruling of the High court certified on &nbsp;&nbsp;25/6/2002, which convicted the respondent for
contempt for proceeding to&nbsp; perform an
event when there was an injunction pending seeking to restrain him from
performing the event. This order was annexed to the application as Exhibit S1.
In Exhibit S1, the respondent was given 48 hours to give an undertaking not to
perform any public function as Omanhene until his status has been fully and
finally determined. The respondent was also fined C5 million for the contempt
committed. <o:p></o:p>The
appellant case further was that the respondent on several occasions disobeyed
the court orders in Exhibits S1 and S2. The appellant further averred that on
the 30/4/2010, the respondent and three others were convicted by the High
Court, Cape Coast for contempt of court for disobeying the court and
interfering with the administration of justice. Lastly the appellant stated
that the respondent in a blatant disobedience to the orders of the High Court
publicly paraded and held himself as the Omanhene of Edina Traditional Area, as
he rode in a palanquin and performed public functions. This was captured in the
Spectator, a weekly newspaper of 17/7/2010.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent filed an affidavit in opposition in which he admitted the existence
of the court orders against him but stated that the orders contained in Exhibit
S2 was null and void as it was made without jurisdiction. The respondent also
deposed that he appealed against the orders contained in Exhibit S1 and got the
orders stayed by the High Court pending the determination of the appeal.<o:p></o:p>On
the 28/ 9 /2010 both counsel for the parties argued the motion for committal
for contempt and the motion was adjourned to the 20/10/2010 for ruling.&nbsp; The trial court in its ruling dismissed the
motion for contempt for the reason that the application before it was a cause
and matter that affected chieftaincy and as such the court had no jurisdiction
to entertain same. The appellant dissatisfied with the ruling mounted this
appeal praying that the ruling of the trial court be set aside and the
respondent committed for contempt of court. The notice of appeal filed on the
2/11/10 had one ground of appeal, which was:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;‘’ that 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 had no
jurisdiction.’’<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This appeal raises serious legal issues one of
which is whether a party can unilaterally disobey a court order on grounds that
the order is a nullity. I do not intend to address this issue since my brother
Dennis Adjei, JA, has ably and sufficiently dealt with the law on that issue in
his opinion, which I have had opportunity to read in advance. I will thus limit
my opinion to the main ground in this appeal. I feel compelled to address the
ground notwithstanding the fact that learned counsel for the respondent has
rightly conceded in his statement of case filed on 13/6/2011, that the trial
court erred when it ruled that the application for committal before it was a
cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. I wish to commend counsel for respondent
Mr. Dawson for that exemplary good practice which is missing from the Bar these
days.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The application which has resulted in this
appeal was a simply one, praying for the committal of the respondent for his
blatant disobedience of court orders directed against him as in Exhibits S1 and
S2. As observed above the application was heard on its merit and the trial
court dismissed it.&nbsp; The law on contempt
in our jurisdiction is well established. The Superior Courts are the only
courts that are vested with power under article 126 (2) of the 1992
Constitution to hear and deal with all contempt cases. The said article provide
thus:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp; ‘’2) The Superior
Courts shall be the superior courts of record and shall have the power to
commit for contempt to themselves and all such powers as were vested in a court
of record immediately before the coming into force of this constitution.’’<o:p></o:p>The
Superior Courts power to deal with contempt cases is further provided in
section 36 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), as amended, which also provides
that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;‘’36. (1) The
Superior Courts of Judicature shall have the power to commit for contempt to
themselves and all such powers as were vested in a court of record immediately
before the coming into force of the Constitution in relation to contempt of
court.<o:p></o:p>