THE REPUBLIC vs. FRANCIS L.A. BROWN AND FRANCIS KPAKPO BROWN EX PARTE: VICTOR AGGOE BRIANDT [2018]DLHC5447

THE REPUBLIC vs. FRANCIS L.A. BROWN AND FRANCIS KPAKPO BROWN EX PARTE: VICTOR... [2018]DLHC5447

Date	2018-11-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CR/517/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC5447

KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

ANDREWS TETTEH FOR THE APPLICANT

ABENA DUMA AIDOO HOLD BRIEF SOMUAH ASAMOAH FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC5447
																																						<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>FRANCIS L.A. BROWN AND FRANCIS KPAKPO BROWN <o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: VICTOR AGGOE BRIANDT<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[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/517/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 27TH NOVEMBER,
2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANDREWS TETTEH 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">

ABENA
DUMA AIDOO HOLD BRIEF SOMUAH ASAMOAH FOR THE RESPONDENT <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">

KWEKU
T. ACKAAH-BOAFO 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">

DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>APPLICATION
FOR COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This
matter was originally scheduled for Thursday, November 22, 2018. On the said
day however, the Respondents did not attend Court. The issued Bench Warrants
but same were later rescinded when the Respondents came to Court at about 2pm
with their Counsel.<o:p></o:p>I start this decision with a quote of Lord Byron (1788-1824) a rather flamboyant
former member of the British House of Lords. He is credited with the statement
that: “He who holds no Laws in awe, He must perish by the Law”. Put simply,
ordinarily, the law must be obeyed,
no matter the circumstances. <o:p></o:p>[2]&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>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Contempt of Court is the mechanism which
the law provides for the protection of the authority of the court from improper
interference. Contempt arises in many ways but includes a breach of a court
order, an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice, a deliberate
attack upon the integrity of a court or a judge that interferes with
proceedings, or some other form of conduct not foreseeable. Contempt of court
is part of a court's inherent jurisdiction and, as it is not precisely
prescribed or enacted, should be exercised with scrupulous care and only when
the circumstances are clear and beyond reasonable doubt.<o:p></o:p><b</main>