THE REPUBLIC vs. AO ZHANXIN a.k.a. TONY EXPARTE: KRAH BROTHERS [2017]DLHC4016

Date	2017-07-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CR62/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4016

JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO

CONSTANTINE K. KUDZEDZI ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT

EKOW DADSON ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2017]DLHC4016
																																						<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>AO ZHANXIN a.k.a. TONY EXPARTE: KRAH
BROTHERS<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION
DIVISION, COURT 6) 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: CR62/2017&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;DATE: <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">12TH
JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>CONSTANTINE K. KUDZEDZI ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT <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:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">EKOW
DADSON ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO<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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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">DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL
FOR CONTEMPT<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction:<o:p></o:p>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
learned (and one of the respected jurists in the Common Law tradition) Lord
Denning MR in the case of BRADBURY v. ENFIELD LONDON BOROUGH
COUNCIL [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1311 @ 1324 stated:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Even
if chaos should result, still the law must be obeyed”.<o:p></o:p>[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Applicant moves this application to vindicate the law and its sanctions. He
accuses the Respondent of breaking the law by disrespecting a binding order of
the court, thereby bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. <o:p></o:p>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition defines
contempt as “conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a Court or
legislature. Because such conduct interferes with the administration of
justice, it is punishable, usually by fine or imprisonment.” The Oxford
Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English by A.S. Hornby (7th
Edition) also defines contempt of court as “the crime of refusing to obey an
order made by a court; not showing respect for a court or judge.”<o:p></o:p>[4]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The power of the High Court to punish
for contempt is provided in S.10 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29)
and Articles 19(12) and 126 of the 1992 Republican Constitution of Ghana.&nbsp; There is however, no codified legislation in
Ghana that defines the act or omission that constitute the offence of contempt.
It therefore sounds to reason that Ghanaian courts resort to case law to
resolve any issue regarding contempt when confronted with one.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[5]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Supreme Court confirmed the
non-codified nature of contempt in Ghana in the case of IN RE: EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS
(No.2) EX PARTE AMEYAW II (1998-99) SCGLR 639 @ 660 when His
Lordship Acquah JSC (as he then was)
stated that:<o:p></o:p>“My lords, contempt of Court is the
only common law offence still known to our law, as same is saved by article
19(12) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 10 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act
29). And unlike other countries where the offence is codified like the English
Contempt of Court Act of 1981, ours is still case law”.<o:p></o:p>[6]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Justice Acquah in the same case further
judicially articulated what constitutes contempt when he summed up the law in
an apt and concise manner as follows:<o:p></o:p>“In brief, contempt is constituted by
any act or omissions tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly
administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for
its authority.” <o:p></o:p>[7]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In R
v SITO I; EXPARTE FORDJOUR (2001-2002) SCGLR 322 the Supreme Court&nbsp;&nbsp; gave yet another dimension to the definition
of contempt.&nbsp; Their Lordships gave the
elements constituting the offence of contempt as that:-<o:p></o:p>