NOWFIL S. LABA vs. WISSAN AID LABA AND LATEX FORM RUBBER PRODUCTS LIMITED EX-PARTE: EX PARTE NOWFILL LABA [2016]DLHC3510

NOWFIL S. LABA vs. WISSAN AID LABA AND LATEX FORM RUBBER PRODUCTS LIMITED EX-PAR... [2016]DLHC3510

Date	2016-07-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO.MISC/0064/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC3510

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

1ST RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY K. TAWIAH SASU

MINKAH-PREMO ESQ WITH SOPHIA KORKOR MS FOR APPLICANT

SARPONG ODAME ESQ FOR KIMATHI KUENYEHIA ESQ FOR 2ND – 5TH RESPONDENT

THADDEUS SORY ESQ FOR 1ST RESPONDENT

[2016]DLHC3510
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">NOWFIL
S. LABA<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>WISSAN AID LABA AND LATEX FORM RUBBER PRODUCTS LIMITED<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"><o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: EX PARTE NOWFILL LABA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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">

SUIT
NO.MISC/0064/2016&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: 13TH JULY, 2016 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>1ST RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY K. TAWIAH
SASU <o:p></o:p>MINKAH-PREMO, ESQ WITH SOPHIA KORKOR, MS FOR APPLICANT
SARPONG ODAME, ESQ FOR KIMATHI KUENYEHIA, ESQ FOR 2ND – 5TH
RESPONDENT <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">

THADDEUS
SORY, ESQ FOR 1ST RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
third in the trilogy of applications for committal for contempt has been
bedevilled with two weightier preliminary legal points of law by Sory, Esq. The
net effect of the two legal objections raised is for the action of Nowfill Laba
citing the five respondents for contempt to be dismissed in limini without even
the benefit of hearing the substantive submissions for the committal
proceedings. <o:p></o:p>The
first ground of the legal objection is that the application for contempt is
incompetent in so far as the affidavit in support of the contempt application
is irregular. Counsel contends that the contempt application launched under
Order 50 of the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules, C. I 47 is not an
interlocutory application but a substantive one and as long as it is a
substantive application, the deponent of such an application must be the
applicant who may depose to matters within his personal knowledge, information
and belief. This he contends that rule 8 of Order 20 of C.I 47 does not allow
applications that are not in the nature of being interlocutory for the deponent
to be some other person other than the applicant.<o:p></o:p>The
second leg of his preliminary objection is rooted under Order 43 Rule 5(1)(b)
and (cc) of C. I. 47. Counsel then further argues that as Nowfill Laba
complains of a violation of an order of the court, the said person in terms of
Order 41 of C.I 47 ought to have drawn and entered the order of the court by
the filing of the entry of the order failing which the order of the court is
incapable of enforcement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>These
two preliminary legal points raises formidable questions of law for the
consideration of the court.<o:p></o:p>I
intend to proceed with the second leg of the submission of learned counsel. I
pose the question as an aid to help me in dealing with the second submission as
to whether or not for a person to mount a contempt application founded upon an
alleged order of the court that has been violated if it is necessary or it is a
precondition for such order to have been entered in a form of the filing of
entry of judgment before a contempt application can be grounded in court?<o:p></o:p>Order
43 Rule 5(1) and (cc) states as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;“5. (1) Where<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(a)&nbsp;…<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(b)&nbsp;a person disobeys a judgment or order
requiring the person to abstain from doing an act. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The judgment or order may subject to these
Rules may be enforced by one or more of the&nbsp;following means<o:p></o:p>