THE REPUBLIC vs. ROGER EDWARD GILLMAN AND ANOTHER [2017]DLHC3318

Date	2017-07-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR 250/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3318

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

CECIL ADESIH ESQ. FOR A. A. SAMOAH ASAMOAH ESQ FOR APPLICANT PRESENT

MAXWELL LOGAN ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2017]DLHC3318
																																						<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>ROGER EDWARD GILLMAN AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(GENERAL JURISDICTION 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
250/2017&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; &nbsp; &nbsp;11TH JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CECIL ADESIH, ESQ. FOR A. A. SAMOAH ASAMOAH, ESQ 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">

MAXWELL LOGAN,
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>The
authority of the court to ensure that its orders are not disrespected or
ignored is at the heart of court of contempt applications. As noted by Atuguba
JSC IN RE KWABENG STOOL, REPUBLIC v
BROWN; EX PARTE KARIKARI [2005-2006] SCGLR 35@41 and relying on the English
authority of JENNISON v BAKER [1972]
1AELR 997 @1005-1006 CA that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“if the orders of
the court can deliberately be set at naught by a litigant employing for her own
personal advantage such means as were here resorted to and if indeed it be the
case that she has to go unpunished for her contumacy, justice vanishes from the
horizon and the law is brought into disrepute… in the memorable words of his
honour Judge Curtis –Raleigh:” the law should not be seen to sit by limply
while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Applicant has mounted this application under Order 55 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 28
paragraph affidavit that accompanied the application as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicant
and Respondent have been directors of a company called Gillman &amp; Abbey
Funeral Services Ltd together with one Stuart Payne who are all shareholders of
the company. Applicant alleges that there had been an emergency meeting
conveyed at the instance of the Respondent at Tooting, London on January 23rd
2017 which purported to remove him as a director of the company. This, the
applicant depose, was followed up with an electronic mail on 31st
January, 2017 captioned “Termination of Appointment as Managing Director”.
Aggrieved by the contents of the email terminating his appointment as a
director he caused to be issued a writ and statement of claim for service on
the Respondent as defendant seeking a number of relief.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicant
contend that subsequent to the issuance of the writ he caused an application
for interlocutory injunction to be filed to restrain the Respondent from
proceeding with an intended plan to sell the funeral home or restrain the
Respondent from causing any further publication of defamatory matter concerning
the Applicant. Applicant argues that pending the hearing of his application,
the Commercial Division of the High Court, Coram: Noble Nkrumah J. made the
following order directed at Respondent as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“to halt all processes
leading to a possible sale of 3rd defendant and or changing the
current structure of 3rd defendant”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicant
claim that Respondent was in court when the order was made and yet he has
deliberately flouted the said order of the court by proceeding to change the
structure of the company by doing the following acts: appointing a new manager
for the company, appointing a new director, secretary and caused such changes
to be effected at the Registrar General’s Department. Applicant concludes that
such acts amount to contempt of court and hence the order he seeks for the
Respondent to be punished.<o:p></o:p>A
bench warrant was issued by the court for the apprehension of Respondent who
was absent from court on 12/5/17, 24/05/17 and 06/06/17. The court in the
interest of fair trial thought it necessary upon the voluntary appearance of
the Respondent to rescind the warrant. It further granted leave for Respondent
to file an affidavit in opposition for his committal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Respondent
has opposed the application claiming that he has not deliberately flouted the
orders of the court. He claim that the order of the court on the 17th
of February, 2017 was an issue specific in relation to an alleged sale of the
house made by counsel for the applicant and was not in any way related to the
management and internal governance of the company. <o:p></o:p>