THE REPUBLIC vs. OSUDOKU TRADITIONAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS EX PARTE: NUMO GAWORNU CHAI AND NUMO PIUS NARH LARWEH [2018]DLHC3499

THE REPUBLIC vs. OSUDOKU TRADITIONAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS EX PARTE: NUMO GAWORNU C... [2018]DLHC3499

Date	2018-01-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CR/650/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3499

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3499
																																						<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">THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>OSUDOKU TRADITIONAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: NUMO GAWORNU CHAI AND NUMO PIUS NARH LARWEH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (GENERAL
JURISDICTION 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.CR/650/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 12TH JANUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 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 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>“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>The
Applicants have mounted this application under Order 50 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 seeking an order of committal for contempt
against the Respondents. The grounds for the application can be gleaned from
the affidavit and the supplementary affidavits that accompanied the
application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
1st Applicant in his affidavit claim that the 2nd
Respondent, who is the Paramount Chief of Osudoku Traditional area inaugurated
a nine member arbitration committee headed by Nene Terkpetey Omersu V for the
purpose of settling a chieftaincy dispute between Gbese Tekworsi Division and Tsangmer
Clan. This committee duly conducted the assignment and submitted its report to
the 2nd Respondent. Based on the recommendations of the committee, 2nd
Respondent, according to Applicants held a ceremony at Osuwem and introduced
nine new chiefs that included 3rd and 4th Respondents as
having been elevated to positions of sub-divisional chief and divisional chief
of Gbese Tekworsi respectively. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicants
further contend that being so aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings and
recommendations of the arbitration committee based upon which the 3rd
and 4th Respondents were elevated, they filed an application for
judicial review to quash the findings and recommendations of the arbitration
committee. And same was granted by the High Court on the 14th of
July, 2017 where the court granted an order of certiorari quashing the findings
of the arbitration committee. Coram Arkaah Boafo J. It is the case of the
Applicants that the order of the High Court was duly served on the Respondents
even though the Respondents were in court when the ruling was read. That
notwithstanding the order quashing the findings of the arbitration committee
based on which the 3rd and 4th Respondents were elevated
to divisional and sub divisional chiefs, the 1st and 2nd
Respondents have failed or refused to give what they claim “any attention to
the order of the court” as they have held a ceremony to introduce the 3rd
and 4th Respondents as chiefs contrary to the order of the court.
For the 1st and 2nd Respondents to continue to treat the
3rd and 4th Respondents as chiefs and for them also to
hold themselves as such, to Applicants amount to contempt of court and
accordingly seek an order for their punishment by this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
a supporting affidavit also deposed to by one Lydia Lamptey she claim that the
4th Respondent has disregarded the orders of the High Court dated
the 14th of June, 2017 by holding himself out as Divisional Chief of
Gbese Terkworsi by making payment of Ghc5,000.000 to 1st Respondent
in respect of the annual festival of Osuduku.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Respondents
have fiercely parried the allegation that any conduct of theirs amount to
contempt of court. In separate affidavits in opposition deposed to by Nene Ogbe
Asumeng and Nene Aadegbor Ngmogmowuyaa Kwesi Animle IV they claim that the
performance of traditional ceremony of elevating them to the status of chiefs
in Osudoku Traditional Council was done before the order of the High Court
quashing the findings of the arbitration committee as the recommendations of
the arbitration was effected in October 2016 whiles the order of the High Court
quashing the findings of the arbitration was on the 14th of June,
2017. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>And
that the Respondents are unaware that the order quashing the findings of the
arbitration committee also declared as null and void the performance of the
customary rites of their elevation as chiefs. Respondents are emphatic tha</main>