THE REPUBLIC vs. NETLYNK ESTATES LIMITED & ANOR, EX PARTE; JESUS & MARY SCHOOL LTD. [2019]DLHC10138

THE REPUBLIC vs. NETLYNK ESTATES LIMITED & ANOR, EX PARTE; JESUS & MARY SCHOOL L... [2019]DLHC10138

Date	2019-07-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR/23/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10138

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

EVA OKYERE

WITH PRISCILLA AGUDEY AND YAA NYARKO ASAMOAH FOR APPLICANT

RICHMOND NUMBO SAAKA FOR RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLHC10138
																																						<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>NETLYNK
ESTATES LIMITED &amp; ANOR, EX PARTE; JESUS &amp; MARY SCHOOL LTD.<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/
APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL DIVISION) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. CR/23/2018&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; DATE:
24THJULY 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EVA OKYERE, WITH PRISCILLA AGUDEY AND YAA NYARKO ASAMOAH FOR APPLICANT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RICHMOND NUMBO SAAKA FOR RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Background<o:p></o:p>The power of the
Court, statutory or inherent to punish for contempt of court is multifaceted; exercisable
in its various forms in appropriate circumstances not just to ensure
enforcement of its judgments, decrees or orders but also to punish in
appropriate cases where the court’s exclusive constitutional and statutory
authority to exercise final judicial powers in matters presented and pending before
it, is deliberately, or even inadvertently being disrespected, disregarded or whittled
away by a party in the suit, or persons connected to the party.<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Rep%20v%20Netlynk%20&amp;amp;%20Anor;%20Exparte%20Jesus%20&amp;amp;%20Mary%20School%20Ltd.%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This contempt power
is exercisable by order of committal mostly upon application<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Rep%20v%20Netlynk%20&amp;amp;%20Anor;%20Exparte%20Jesus%20&amp;amp;%20Mary%20School%20Ltd.%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> to
the court. The object among others is to protect and preserve the power,
dignity and integrity of the court not solely to itself but largely also in the
public interest as the custodian of the rights and liberties of the citizenry
and the exclusive holder and exercise of final judicial power in effective, unfettered,
smooth and efficacious administration of law and justice in the Ghanaian society.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;By a motion that
was filed on 11 January 2018 under Order 50, C.I.47<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Rep%20v%20Netlynk%20&amp;amp;%20Anor;%20Exparte%20Jesus%20&amp;amp;%20Mary%20School%20Ltd.%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a> the
Applicant prays the court for “an order for committal for contempt directed at
[r]espondents herein”, and “any further order(s) as the Honourable Court may
deem fit … [u]pon the grounds stated in the accompanying affidavit”. Indeed,
the affidavit in support consists of a 13-page paragraph depositions attached
thereto with series of exhibits.<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Rep%20v%20Netlynk%20&amp;amp;%20Anor;%20Exparte%20Jesus%20&amp;amp;%20Mary%20School%20Ltd.%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a> On
23 January 2018, just within two weeks, 1st Respondent responded to
the application by filing affidavit in opposition, describing the application
as having failed to make a case; in fact, contending that the application is
founded on no grounds, and that 1st Respondent has no case to answer.<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Rep%20v%20Netlynk%20&amp;amp;%20Anor;%20Exparte%20Jesus%20&amp;amp;%20Mary%20School%20Ltd.%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a> <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Apparently in
response to 1st Respondent claim among others of no notice of the court’s
interlocutory restraint order, applicant had serially filed four affidavits
that it labelled them as supplementary and further supplementary affidavits in
support of the application.<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Rep%20v%20Netlynk%20&amp;amp;%20Anor;%20Exparte%20Jesus%20&amp;amp;%20Mary%20School%20Ltd.%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">