SAM JONAH vs. RICHMOND AGGREY [2017]DLHC3326

Date	2017-07-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AC/13/09
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3326

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

KIZITO BEYUO ESQ FOR APPLICANT PRESENT

VIVIAN LAMPTEY MS FOR RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2017]DLHC3326
																																						<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" >SAM JONAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>RICHMOND AGGREY<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.
AC/13/09&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;10TH JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KIZITO BEYUO, 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">

VIVIAN
LAMPTEY, MS 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>I
begin this ruling with the words of Lord George Gordon Byron, an English
Romantic poet (1788-1824) &nbsp;who once said that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“He who holds no law in
awe, he must perish by the law”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>And
Horace Mann (1796-1859, a Whig politician from Masachusset, USA and an
educationist who once remarked in his work, A
Few Thoughts for a Young Man’ of situations where justice is not done as:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“<span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Injustice alone can shake down the pillars of the skies, and
restore the reign of Chaos and Night”. 
 
<o:p></o:p>The
authority of the court to ensure that chaos and night does not descend upon the
land is by upholding order with its decrees not being disrespected or ignored
which is at the heart 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] 1ALR 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 word 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
affidavit that accompanied the motion paper as 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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:
auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">In consideration of 25% of Respondent’s
20% shares in Scancom Ghana Ltd and 50% share of the shares of Respondent in a
joint venture, the Applicant advanced US$750.000 and One Million Swiss Francs
(SFRI,000,000) to Respondent with a promise by Respondent to cause Grand View
Management Ltd., a custodian company to do a transfer of the shares in Scancom
to Applicant. Subsequently, the Respondent issued a writ against Investcom,
Scancom and Grand View Management Ltd for reliefs, inter alia, to restore
Respondent as a shareholder and director of Scancom.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:
auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:
auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">Applicant claims that in the course of
the litigation mounted by Respondent against Scancom, Respondent was in dire
need of money and prevailed upon him to advance him an amount of
US$1.000.000.00 to be repaid with interest at LIBOR+5 of the sums expected to
be received from the suit as settlement or judgment with a further provision
that the loan advanced was to be a first ranking charge to be paid out of the
judgment debt. And Respondent agreed not to settle or compromis</main>