[2011]DLHC8252 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#00B0F0">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#00B0F0">MANSO AKWAMU CO. LTD. AND 5 OTHERS;<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#00B0F0">EX PARTE ABOTARE YE SSM GROUP & 8 OTHERS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri">[HIGH COURT, KUMASI</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">]</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%; border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm; mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">SUIT NO. C12/100/11 </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"> DATE: 1<sup>ST</sup> JUNE, 2011<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">H. K. KODUAH FOR APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">WILLIAM KUSI FOR RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">CORAM:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span class="NoSpacingChar"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif">This ruling is in respect of an application for the attachment of the respondents for contempt of court. Before the instant application, some of the respondents instituted a similar application against the first applicant company and another in a Kumasi High Court presided over by Justice Azumah. When the matter came for hearing, Justice Azumah ordered both sides to desist from entering a property in dispute till the matter is disposed of. The application before him was as a result of a limited injunction granted in favour of the respondents by a Kumasi Circuit Court presided over by His Honour Amo-Yartey. From the wording of the prohibitory order of Justice Azumah, both sides were restrained to await the outcome of the suit at the Circuit Court initiated by the respondent company against the applicants. The applicants are now asserting that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of Justice Azumah, given on 17<sup>th</sup> of November, 2010 and re-emphasized on 30<sup>th</sup> November, 2010; hence the instant application by them calling on the court to attach the respondents for contempt.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif">Only the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents filed affidavits in opposition. Though the others did not respond, the issue of non service did not arise as their counsel appeared satisfied that all the respondents were served. For this reason, he filed a written submission in support of their case in opposition to the application. Be it as it may, the affidavit of 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent, who deposed that he owns the Manso Akwamu Mining concession, came to their defence when he deposed that they were not present when the order now in issue was made by Justice Azumah. This was in apparent response to the assertion of the applicants in paragraph 8 of their affidavit in support of the application in the following terms:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">“8. That the Respondents who were not parties to the original suit at the Circuit Court were present at the High Court before Justice Azumah and were in the company of 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent when the said orders were made. Thus, the other Respondents i.e. 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> Respondents were aware of the said orders when same were made, but deliberately decided to flout same with gross impunity…”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif">The above quoted deposition suggests that the respondents were not parties to the action instituted at the Circuit Court. That is not wholly true. The 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent admitted he instituted that action, as the owner of 1<sup>st</sup> respondent company, against the applicants. What, however, is a certainty is that the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 6<sup>th</sup> respondents were not parties to that action. They were joined to the instant motion because it was asserted they were in court, in the company of 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent, when Justice Azumah issued the restraining order already referred to. However, the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent denied any knowledge of the court’s order and also alleged that he was in a different concession, and not the one in respect of which Justice Azumah made the order when he was arrested by the police. Can the other respondents be held for contempt in view of the fact that they were not parties to the action that led to the prohibitory order of Justice Azumah? They could be found liable for contempt if there is evidence that the order was served on them, yet with the knowledge of it, they willfully flouted it. There are several judicial authorities in support of the opinion just expressed by the court. For instance in the <i>Republic v Sito I; Ex parte Fordjour</i> (2001-2002) SCGLR 322 holding(1), rightly cited by counsel for the applicants, it was held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">“The essential elements for the offence of contempt are: (i) there must be a judgment or order requiring the contemnor to do or abstain from doing something; (ii) it must be shown that the cotemnor knows what precisely he is expected to do or abstain from doing and (iii) it must be shown that he failed to comply with the terms of the judgment or order and that his disobedience is willful”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif">The applicants had a duty to show that the respondents knew of the order of Justice Azumah, and further, that it was directed at them, but they willfully disobeyed it. And they can only succeed if they discharged that duty beyond a reasonable doubt, contempt being quasi-criminal. Thus in the Supreme Court case of <i>In re Effiduase Stool Affairs (No 2); Republic v Nimapau, President of the National Hou