THE REPUBLIC vs. ASAMOAH THADDENS & OTHER; EX PARTE KWAME GYASI [2011]DLHC8244

Date	2011-07-06
Suit No.	SUIT C12\|161\|11
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC8244

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

OHENE GYANG FOR THE APPLICANT

ATTA AGYEI FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[2011]DLHC8244
																																						<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>ASAMOAH
THADDENS &amp; OTHER; EX PARTE KWAME GYASI<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<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">

SUIT
C12|161|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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:
6TH JULY, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OHENE
GYANG FOR THE APPLICANT<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">

ATTA
AGYEI FOR THE RESPONDENTS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling is as a result of an application brought
before this court by the plaintiff/applicant, describing himself as the head of
the Royal Asene family of Odumasi, against the defendant/respondents who are
said to be principal members of the family of one Nana Joseph Yaw Donkor,
deceased, for contempt of court. I shall hereafter refer to the parties as the
applicant and respondents respectively. The applicant had earlier caused to be
issued a writ of summons at the Kumasi Circuit court, presided over by His
Honour Amo-Yartey, praying for an order to stop the defendants from performing
the funeral rites of late Nana Joseph Yaw Donkor until the burial and funeral
rites of the late queenmother of Odumasi have been performed and an order for
injunction to restrain the respondents in that regard. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The following day after the filing of the writ, the
applicant was granted an interim injunction based on an ex parte application
restraining the respondents from performing the said final funeral rites of Nana
Joseph Yaw Donkor. The order, as expected, was for a limited period of ten days.
Interestingly, the next day after the granting of this ex parte application,
the 1st respondent was granted leave by the same court, also based
on an ex parte motion, to bury the late Nana Joseph Yaw Donkor. The court was
emphatic the order restraining the burial of the deceased had been set aside.
It was silent on the earlier order that up fetters on the performance of the
final funeral rites. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Clearly, the second order did not make any meaning, and
in my view, was unnecessary, as the earlier order in favour of the applicant
was limited to the performance of funeral rites. There was no order preventing
the burial of the body of the deceased. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>The applicant is now in court praying that the
respondents are punished because they overstepped the orders of the court when
they buried the deceased and went ahead to perform the final funeral rites,
which he contended is in wilful disregard of the clear order of the Circuit
Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Both respondents filed separate affidavits in opposition
to the motion. They denied the funeral rites of the deceased had been
performed, though they partook in what they described as “an incidental sitting or session
associated with the burial of a royal and ex-stool occupant and not the final
funeral rites.” They deposed that they were assigned a role of policing
the corpse which they did till the late hours of the day when it was buried.
According to them, they played no other role. They also deposed that based on
the intervention of the Asantehene, when a letter was written from his Secretariat
to the Circuit Court, informing it he had directed the corpse of the late Nana
Joseph Yaw Donkor and others of the Asene Royal Family to be buried, and their
funerals performed accordingly, the court had vacated its earlier restraining
order over the final funeral rites of the deceased. They then pleaded to be
forgiven if what they did constituted contempt.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Are the respondents in contempt? Having regards to
exhibit KG1 which is a funeral announcement poster and which detailed the
funeral arrangements of late Nana Joseph Yaw Donkor, there is no doubt the
final funeral rites of the deceased were performed on 19th March,
2011, two days after the Circuit Court ordered the respondents not to do so
though the respondents sought to deny it. However, the denial that the rites
were not performed is an admission that they were aware of the prohibitory
order in that regard. It is admitted the court made another order on the 18th
of March, 2011 but that did not vacate its earlier order as regards the final
funeral rites. It gave the respondents permission to bury the deceased. That
order has been described by this court as unnecessary. The argument that the
court vacated its earlier order based on the letter from Asantehene’s Secretariat
is not tenable. If the Circuit Court had intended to vacate the order of 17th
March, 2011 it should have done so in clear terms. From the terms of the order
of 18th March, 2011 the Circuit Court intended to permit the
respondents to bury the corpse, and no other ceremony beyond that was to be
performed. However, Exhibit KG1 already referred to went beyond the burial. It
included the performance of the final rites after the burial of the corpse of
Nana Joseph Yaw Donkor. And the respondents were listed amongst the chief
mourners. Their action of performing the final rites amounted to a clear and willful
breach of the order of the Circuit Court made on 17th March, 2011.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>