THE REPUBLIC vs. CARL JOSIAH REINDORF EX PARTE C.F.C. COMPANY LTD [2017]DLHC3316

Date	2017-07-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR 391/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3316

ERIC K. BAFFOUR

ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

M. ACHIAMPONG (MRS) FOR APPLICANT PRESENT

BOADU ESQ FOR RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2017]DLHC3316
																																						<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>CARL JOSIAH REINDORF EX PARTE C.F.C.
COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(GENERALJURISDICTION 7), 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. CR 391/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 19TH JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>M. ACHIAMPONG (MRS) FOR APPLICANT PRESENT<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">

BOADU, ESQ FOR
RESPONDENT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC
K. BAFFOUR, ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
is an application mounted under Order 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, C. I. 47 seeking an order of committal for contempt against the
Respondent. The grounds for the application had been stated in the affidavit
deposed to by one Leela Dyson as follows: that C.F.C company instituted an
action against the Respondent and one Philip Reindorf in a suit no BMSC
816/2012. The purpose of the suit was to seek an order to declare as null and
void on grounds of fraud and illegality a judgment of the High Court dated the
22nd July, 1997 obtained by the Reindorfs of Adain Onamrokor family.
The court in its judgment on the 28th of June, 2016 set aside the
1997 judgment of the High Court on grounds of fraud with a further declaration
that the Respondent had no capacity to grant out C.F.C Estate lands at mile 7
on the Accra - Nsawam road, thus annulling all grants made by the Reindorfs on
the 1997 judgment. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
court further ruled, according to the Applicant, that the Respondent account to
plaintiff for all lands granted for regularization of title. To Applicant,
since the dismissal of Respondent’s motion for stay of execution, the
Respondent has made no effort at obeying the order of the court to account to
the applicant the land Respondent has granted event though an entry of judgment
has been served on him. To applicant such refusal to account amount to contempt
of court as it is disrespectful of the orders of the court to account.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Respondent
in his affidavit in opposition challenges the capacity of the applicant and
also claim that there is no merit in the application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
defines contempt of court as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.3pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:34.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.2pt;line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;
text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">“Wilful disobedience or open disrespect of the
orders, authority, or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; dignity of a
court or a Judge acting in a judicial capacity by &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; disruptive &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; language
or conduct or by failure to obey the court’s orders”.<o:p></o:p>Contempt
may be civil or criminal in nature. It may be contempt in facia curiae and it may be ex
facie curiea.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
RE EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS (NO.2);
REPUBLIC v. ODURO NUMAPAU, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS &amp;
OTHERS; EX –PARTE AMEYAW II (NO.2),(1998-99) SCGLR 639, the Supreme Court
noted as follows when it set out the distinction between the two main types of
contempt known to the law that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>‘’Civil
contempt are those quasi-contempt which consist in the failure to do something
which the party is ordered by the court to do for the benefit or advantage of
another party to the proceedings before the court, while criminal contempts are
acts done in disrespect of the court or its process, or which obstruct the
administration of justice or tend to bring the court into disrespect.’’<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;tab-stops:322.25pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp</main>