THE REPUBLIC vs. MAJOR CLIFFORD ATTA WIRROM (RTD) EX PARTE: ERASMUS QUAISON AND MRS. EDITH DAVIS [2012]DLCA8939

THE REPUBLIC vs. MAJOR CLIFFORD ATTA WIRROM (RTD) EX PARTE: ERASMUS QUAISON AN... [2012]DLCA8939

Date	2012-05-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/32/12
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8939

MARFUL-SAU JA (PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA JA

DENNIS ADJEI JA

[2012]DLCA8939
																																						<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>(RESPONDENT)<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>MAJOR CLIFFORD ATTA WIRROM (RTD)<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDNET/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: ERASMUS QUAISON AND MRS. EDITH
DAVIS<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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 NO.
H1/32/12&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 17TH
MAY 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MARFUL-SAU
JA (PRESIDING), HONYENUGA JA, DENNIS ADJEI JA <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JA: - <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
appeal is taken against the ruling of the High Court sitting at Cape Coast
dated the 28th November 2011. Three grounds were formulated in the
Notice of Appeal filed on the 7th December 2011 and found at page
140 of the record of appeal. The grounds are as follows:-<o:p></o:p>‘’i)The
ruling/decision of the Court has effectively undermined a subsisting order made
earlier on by the Court IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH DUMAH
QUAISON(DECEASED) for the parties to lead evidence in support of their
dispositions in their respective affidavits.<o:p></o:p>ii)
The Respondent/Appellant has not been duly served with any judgment and
therefore could not be said to have wilfully disobeyed any order or judgment in
any previous suit.<o:p></o:p>iii)The
Applicants/Respondents failed to satisfy the standard of proof as required of
them by law and the Court erred in holding that the Respondent/Appellant was
liable for contempt.’’<o:p></o:p>Having
studied the record of appeal, I am of the opinion that the appeal raises one
fundamental issue to be resolved which is whether the conviction of the
appellant for contempt is justified in law. I will address this issue but first
let me appraise the proceedings that have given cause to the appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case are simple. On the 10th day of May 1969, one
Joseph Dumah Quaison executed a document as his last Will and Testament. By that
Will the testator appointted one Joseph Acquah alias Kweku Aduakwa the Executor
of the Will, charged to distribute the properties to persons mentioned therein.
However by paragraph 3 of the Will the testator appointed his nephew Atta
Wirrom, the respondent/appellant herein, Trustee of his building in Accra. <o:p></o:p>On
an allegation that the said Atta Wirrom had mismanaged the affairs of the house
in Accra, an action was commenced in the High Court Accra to remove him as the
Trustee of the house. In that action a default judgment was entered against the
respondent/appellant herein on the 14th April 1987, discharging him
as the trustee of the estate.<o:p></o:p>Nothing
seemed to have happened between the respondent/ appellant and the estate till
the Applicant/Respondents herein applied for the grant of Letters of
Administration for the estate of Joseph Dumah Quaison(Deceased) in Suit
No.E4/73/09 filed on the 9th July 2009 in the High Court, Cape
Coast. While the application was pending the respondent/appellant filed a
caveat against the application for the grant of Letters of Administration. On
the 8th February 2011, the applicants/respondents herein commenced
contempt proceedings against the respondent/appellant in Suit No.E9/107/2011.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The respondent appellant was found liable and
convicted for contempt and perjury, for which he was sentenced toGHC1, 000.00
or three months imprisonment. He was also to pay cost of GHC1, 000.00 to the
applicants/respondents. It is against this conviction that this appeal has been
mounted.<o:p></o:p>In
this appeal, the respondent/ appellant will be known as the appellant and the
applicants/respondents would be referred to simply as respondents. The application
filed by the respondents for the contempt was supported by a 23 paragraph
affidavit. I have carefully examined the affidavit and what I find is that the
application for contempt was based on two major grounds, first that appellant’s
caveat constituted an interference with administration of justice, in respect
of respondents application for the grant of Letters of Administration. <o:p></o:p>The
other ground was appellant’s denial of knowledge of the judgment entered
against him by the Accra High Court in 1987, even though he attempted to set
aside the judgment but failed. From the affidavit in support of the contempt
application even though the respondents deposed to the fact that the appellant
disobeyed the orders of the Accra High Court, the affidavit failed woefully to
particularize the exact orders of the court that the appellant disobeyed. Indeed
at paragraph 11 of the said affidavit the respondent deposed that:-<o:p></o:p>‘’11.That
by the judgment aforementioned, the respondent was supposed to have nothing to
do with the estate of the deceased but he refused to obey the orders of the
court.’’<o:p></o:p>The
obvious question to ask from the above deposition is which orders of the court
did the appellant refused to obey? The affidavit and other process filed by the
respondents in the contempt proceedings failed to disclose the orders that the
appellant refused to obey. What then was the basis of the appellant’s
conviction for contempt by the trial court?&nbsp;
After a careful study of the record of appeal it is clear that the trial
court allowed itself to be misdirected by the respondents’ arguments that the
appellant had committed perjury for which he should be convicted for contempt.
Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the affidavit in support of the contempt application
did the trick of misdirecting the trial court. &nbsp;The said paragraphs read as follows:-<o:p></o:p>