THE REPUBLIC vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EOCO & 2 ORS EX-PARTE: CHRISTOPHER ANIMAKO [2014]DLHC12146

Date	2014-06-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM 116/14
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC12146

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

VINCENT AIKINS FOR APPLICANT

ERIC ATIEKU FOR RESPONDENT

[2014]DLHC12146
																																						<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>EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, EOCO &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE:&nbsp; CHRISTOPHER ANIMAKO<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT
NO. FTRM 116/14&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: 4TH&nbsp;JUNE 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&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; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
applicant herein, Mr. Christopher Animako has called upon this Court to commit
the respondents-: The Executive Director of EOCO, Mr. Mortey Akpadzi, Mr.
Edward Cudjoe, Acting Head of Legal, EOCO, and Mr. Charles Wilcox Ofori, a
State Attorney at the Legal Department of EOCO.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Their
fault, to applicant was that, this Court, having ordered a defreeze of his
account, the 3rd respondent – Mr. Charles Wilcox Ofori personally
collected an amount of Sixty Eight Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢68,000.00) from
him.&nbsp; The applicant further stated, he
was sent to the office of Edward Cudjoe and subjected to extensive
interrogation after which he was granted bail.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
bail, though granted him, the amount of Sixty-Eight Thousand Ghana Cedis
(GH¢68,000.00) was not handed over to him.&nbsp;
On the 31st March 2014, with his counsel at the EOCO Offices,
to enquire why the money was seized, he was rather “again arrested whisked to
the Circuit Court, arraigned before the Court and prosecuted for Money
Laundering”.&nbsp; In his Paragraphs 12, 13
and 14 of the Affidavit in Support which I hereby quote hereunder-:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “That I see the whole scenario regarding my
case as &nbsp;&nbsp; absurd and calculated attempt
by the respondent to &nbsp;&nbsp; circumvent the
Order of this Honourable High Court by &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; disregarding
the Order with impunity and perpetrating &nbsp;&nbsp; schemes
that is calculated to interfere with the &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; administration
of law in impeding and perverting the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; cause
of justice”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 13. “That by the acts of the
respondents, they sought to disregard and challenge the fundamental supremacy
of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the law and especially a
Judgment of the High Court &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; which
has Superior Jurisdiction over all inferior Courts”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 14. “That the action of the
respondents is a blatant disobedience of the Order of this Honourable Court and
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; sort of undermine and ridicule the
superiority of this &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; Honourable
Court by resorting to the Circuit Court to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; prosecute
the matter when the Orders of this &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Honourable
Court has not been vacated”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
above quoted paragraphs formed the gravamen of his arguments urging this Court
to commit the respondents to contempt.&nbsp;
There was a joint affidavit sworn to by Edward Cudjoe on behalf of the
other respondents.&nbsp; The attention of the
respondents was drawn to by the Court that, contempt is a quasi-criminal
application and as such a joint affidavit is unknown to procedure.&nbsp; Agreeing with the directions of the Court,
the respondents, each filed his Affidavit in Opposition.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
first respondent, Biadela Mortey Akpadzi opposed the application.&nbsp; In his paragraph 4, 5, 8, 9 &amp; 12 he
deposed thus-:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “4. That as a matter of record the office
has not been formally served with a copy of the Order which the applicant
alleges has been disobeyed, undermined, flouted, ridiculed and thus seeking for
the respondents to be committed to prison of contempt.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;5. That I
have not been personally served with the process presently before the Court as
required by laws but same has been brought to my attention.<o:p></o:p>8. That as far as we are aware the Order of the
Court was complied with by the bank and the applicant was allowed access to the
funds in his bank account.<o:p></o:p>9. That upon furthe</main>