THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT ACCRA EXPARTE:- ROSEMARY ASIEDU AND EUGENE KWAKU QUAYSON [2015]DLSC3232

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT ACCRA EXPARTE:- ROSEMARY ASIEDU AND EUGENE KWAKU QUA... [2015]DLSC3232

Date	2015-06-17
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/21/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLSC3232

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

AKAMBA JSC

GODFRED YEBOAH DAME ESQ. WITH HIM HARUNA MAMAH AND ALEX OSEI MANTEY FOR THE APPLICANTS.

EKOW DADSON ESQ. WITH HIM DAVID AMETEFE THE INTERESTED PARTY.

[2015]DLSC3232
																																						<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>HIGH COURT ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE:- ROSEMARY ASIEDU AND EUGENE
KWAKU QUAYSON<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:
inter-ideograph;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J5/21/2015&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
JUNE, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>GODFRED YEBOAH DAME
ESQ.&nbsp; WITH HIM HARUNA MAMAH AND ALEX OSEI
MANTEY FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

EKOW
DADSON ESQ. WITH HIM DAVID AMETEFE THE INTERESTED PARTY.<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">

ATUGUBA
JSC (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC, AKAMBA 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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>GBADEGBE JSC:<o:p></o:p>We
have before us a notice of motion that seeks an order of judicial review in the
nature of certiorari in respect of the order of the High Court presided over by
Owusu Gyamfi J that allowed in favor of the interested party an application for
attachment for contempt of the bodies of the applicants herein. Before us in
these proceedings, several grounds were urged in support of the instant
application as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:8.5pt;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;
text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%">1.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the court below had no
jurisdiction to utilize the process of a motion for contempt of court to grant
an order of ejection or recovery of possession of the property in question
against the applicants herein when the substantive matrimonial cause between
the 1st applicant herein and the interested party herein is still pending
before another court of co -ordinate jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:8.5pt;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;
text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%">2.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The court below had no power to
use the process of contempt of court to make a substantive order of ejection
against the applicants herein in respect of the premises owned by the 1st applicant
herein.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:8.5pt;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;
text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%">3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The reliefs of ejection from the
premises and an order for the applicants herein to remove all their belongings
from the residential property in question sought by the interested party in her
application for contempt (which were
granted by OwusuGyamfi J) were substantially the same as reliefs 2, 3, and
4 sought by the same interested party in an earlier application for interim
relief in the court duly constituted for the hearing of the matrimonial cause
presided over by Merley Wood J, and, which had been dismissed. The court thus
had no jurisdiction to grant the order of ejection.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:8.5pt;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;
text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%">4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The court below had no jurisdiction to
either prejudice the hearing of the substantive matrimonial cause, viz. Suit
No. BDMC 3146/2013 - CATHERINE PANYIN QUAYSON V EUGENE KWAKU QUAYSON currently
pending before Merley Wood J or prejudice the rights of the 1st applicant
herein to the property in question pending the hearing of the substantive
matrimonial cause by another court of coordinate jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:8.5pt;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;
text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%">5.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The proceedings of the court below
in the contempt application were void as same were in violation of Article 157
of the Constitution of the Republic.<o:p></o:p>We
have carefully considered the processes before us in the application herein and
had regard to the submissions urged on us in open court and have come to the
conclusion that of the several grounds raised in support of the application,
the only ground of substance is that formulated and numbered as 2, which
touches and concerns the absence of jurisdiction in the court below and
accordingly we shall in our ruling limit ourselves to the consideration of that
ground only. We, however, wish to observe of the formulation and in particular
the utilization of the word “power"&nbsp;in reference to the authority to
decide, which is exercisable in relation to disputed questions of fact and or
law and is properly described as jurisdiction as distinct from the authority
conferred on other bodies and o persons such as agents of the executive or designated
public officers.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Having said so, we further observe about the
other grounds that as the only document before us which was certified by the
court below is the ruling on which this application is grounded, we are in a
difficulty as to the competency of grounds 1, 3, and 4 which are derived from
matters which strictly speaking do not come within the designation of the
record for the purposes of certiorari. It is trite learning that the record
includes documents initiating the action such as the pleadings and or charge
sheet and the ruling and or judgment or conviction. Where the order sought to
be quashed relates to an interlocutory decision, then by analogy the record
might include in addition to the processes initiating the action, the notice of
motion and or objection and the ruling founded thereon. See: Republic v High Court, &nbsp;&nbsp;Kumasi, Accra Ex-parte Abubakari (No 2)
[1998-99] SCGLR 904 at 916. As it is, we are not certain in our minds if the
matte</main>