THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE: DR. ERNEST ASIEDU OSAFO, INTERESTED PARTY; ALEX ABOAGYE [2011]DLSC4091

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE: DR. ERNEST ASIEDU OSAFO, INTERE... [2011]DLSC4091

Date	2011-06-28
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/31/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC4091

DR. DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING)

OWUSU (MS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

CHARLES BENTUM FOR THE APPELLANT.

GEORGE AMPIAH-BONNIE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2011]DLSC4091
																																						<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.
ERNEST ASIEDU OSAFO, INTERESTED PARTY; ALEX ABOAGYE<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. J5/31/2011 &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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
28TH
JUNE, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>CHARLES BENTUM FOR THE
APPELLANT.<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">

GEORGE
AMPIAH-BONNIE FOR THE 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">

DR.
DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING), OWUSU (MS) JSC, DOTSE JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, AND
GBADEGBE JSC<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>GBADEGBE,
JSC:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>We have before us a notice
of motion at the instance of the Applicant that seeks to invoke our supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution for an order of
Certiorari quashing the ruling of the High Court Accra dated 29th
March 2011 in Suit Number BFA.81/2007, by which the body of the Applicant was
committed to prison for contempt of court. In the body of the motion paper
originating the application herein, the prayer sought was for an order of
extension of time within which to apply for certiorari in respect of rulings
dated 29 March 201, 13 April 2011 and 21 April 2011. When the matter came up
for hearing, learned counsel for the applicant’s attention having been drawn to
the time frame spelt out in rule 62 of the Supreme Court Rules, CI 16 in
relation to such applications, he abandoned his invitation to us that sought
extension of time and proceeded with leave of the court to move the application
substantively but limited only to the delivery of 29th March 2011.
Following this, the parties through their counsel submitted oral arguments to
us on the application that concerns the order of the High Court Accra, by which
the applicant was condemned into prison for a period of twelve months.<o:p></o:p>In the course of his
ruling in the matter, the learned trial judge of the High Court made a positive
finding against the applicant herein as follows:<o:p></o:p>“I find the conduct of the Respondent by not
complying with the 26th January order as amounting to contempt of
court.&nbsp; I also find the conduct to be
deliberate and willful for the reasons stated earlier in this Ruling and
further for the fact that the application was first placed before the court on
11 August, 2009, and before me in particular on 23 November 2010.The 1st
defendant/respondent since 23 November, 2010, has had a series of adjournment
to his benefit to resolve the matter out of court but has failed to do so.”<o:p></o:p>Pausing here, we observe
that what is before us in the application herein is unrelated to the merits of
the contempt application, as the complaint on which the processes on which the
matter herein are based is concerned only with inquiring into whether or not
the learned trial judge of the High Court, whose pronouncement has just been
referred to above, acted within jurisdiction. In the body of the motion paper,
the applicant founded his challenge to the jurisdiction of the High Court on
the fact that the matter was initially before a judge other than the judge who
conducted the contempt proceedings and that the absence of a transfer order
from the Chief Justice before the matter was placed before the learned trial
judge who ordered his incarceration, the proceedings suffered from the absence
of jurisdiction. From the explanation offered in support of the said ground, it
was quite clear to us that the issue of jurisdiction on which it turned was a
not well founded, but, noting that the matter touched the right of a citizen to
be confined by an order of court and in particular the provisions of Article 14
of the 1992 Constitution that guarantees the right to personal liberty, we
enabled the application to be proceeded with. Reference is made to the
constitutional provision contained in Article 14(1) as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Every person shall be
entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of his
personal liberty except in the following circumstances and in accordance with
procedure permitted by law-<o:p></o:p>(b) in execution of an
order of a court punishing him for contempt of court.”<o:p></o:p>In allowing the applicant
to proceed with the application, we offered him the opportunity to have the
benefit of the elaborate provisions on fundamental human rights as enshrined in
the 1992 Constitution that enjoins us in Article 12 to give meaning and content
to the said rights by enforcing their observance. It repays to make a reference
to clause 1 of Article 12 that is expressed as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The fundamental human rights and
freedoms enshrined in this Chapter shall be respected and upheld by the
Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary and all other organs of government and
its agencies and, where applicable to them, by all natural and legal persons in
Ghana, and shall be enforceable by the courts as provided for in this
Constitution.”<o:p></o:p>This being the position,
we think it is competent for us to examine the circumstances surrounding the
making of&nbsp; the ruling of 29 March 2011 to
find out whether the order made against him was in the words of Article 14 of
the Constitution “in accordance with
procedure permitted by law.” The order ,from the processes filed by the
parties before us was based on&nbsp; the
refusal by the applicant to comply with orders of the High Court that </main>