THE REPUBLIC vs GEORGE ODIASE & 5 ORS (RESPONDENTS) EXPARTE GLORIE OSAFO AGYEMANG-DUAH & ORS APPLICANTS [2019]DLHC6883

THE REPUBLIC vs GEORGE ODIASE & 5 ORS (RESPONDENTS) EXPARTE GLORIE OSAFO AGYEMAN... [2019]DLHC6883

Date	2019-05-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. MISC 22/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6883

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

KWASI AFRIFAH COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

ACE ANKOMAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS WITH GOLDA DENYO AND ESI QUARGRAINIE PRESENT

[2019]DLHC6883
																																						<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>GEORGE ODIASE &amp; 5 ORS (RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE GLORIE OSAFO
AGYEMANG-DUAH &amp; ORS APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWASI AFRIFAH
COUNSEL 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">

ACE
ANKOMAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS WITH GOLDA DENYO AND ESI QUARGRAINIE, PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP
JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE<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;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>On 20th May, 2019 when the
instant contempt application came up for hearing, Kwasi Afrifa Esq. counsel for
the applicants herein prayed the court for permission to examine the
respondents herein. Counsel submitted that the application is grounded on the
fact that the respondents per their various affidavit in opposition have denied
the contempt allegation.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel further submitted that
the application is founded on the Supreme Court case of Kojach Limited vrs
Multi Choice (Ghana) Limited [2013/14] SCGLR 1494, Holding 1 where the court
held:<o:p></o:p>“It
must be pointed out that in virtually all interlocutory applications that come
before our courts, evidence in support would be in the nature of affidavit
evidence as required under Order 19 Rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules 2004 CI 47. In the normal course of determining interlocutory
applications the courts would rely on the affidavits filed together with
exhibits, if any. However, if any of the parties to the application is of the
opinion that certain vital issues appear unresolved, a party may with the leave
of the court, orally apply to the court to cross-examine a deponent to the
affidavit to assist the court in resolving the crucial issue, the determination
of which may have a decisive effect on the determination of the application …”<o:p></o:p>Counsel also cited the Supreme Court
decision in the Republic v Boama Ex-parte Amponsah [2012] 1 SCGLR 58 in support
of the submission that in the face of denials by the Respondents, the court
must order for their examination.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the respondent, Golda Denyo
(Ms) opposed the application on the basis that counsel for the applicant has
not given the court the basis of the examination. Counsel’s position was that a
mere denial by the respondent does not warrant examination.<o:p></o:p>At the time the application was made
the court had not had the privilege of perusing the respondents’ various
affidavit in opposition to the contempt application, as the same were placed on
the court’s docket in the morning of May 20, 2019during the sitting of the
court. The matter was therefore adjourned to today for ruling on the instant
application.<o:p></o:p>Under Order 50 of CI 47, committal
proceedings are to be commenced by an application to the court. The application
shall be supported by an affidavit stating the grounds of the application. A
respondent who wishes to contest the allegation is at liberty to file an
affidavit in opposition. Ordinarily, a contempt application like all
interlocutory applications are decided based on affidavit evidence. However,
there are instances where the court may need additional evidence to satisfy the
requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In that regard, examination of
deponents and/or witnesses becomes necessary.<o:p></o:p>I have read the depositions of the
parties herein as well as their annexures and it is palpably clear that the
parties are at cross purposes in respect of the application. While the
applicants contend that the respondents are in contempt of court, the
respondents insist that they are not. Both parties have made extensive
depositions backed by exhibits to back their stance. In the present
circumstance, it is my considered opinion that the court can rely solely on the
affidavit evidence to resolve the issues which are germane to the determination
of the application. The court does not require any additional factual
information presented as evidence to make a just determination. The court can
rely on the affidavit evidence in tackling denials and disagreements relating
to the contempt application. In arriving at this decision, I was guided by
Order 1 rule 1 (2) of CI 47which imposes a duty on the court to interpret and
apply the rules to ensure speedy trial and effective justice.<o:p></o:p>For the reasons above, the application
to examine the respondents is refused. There will be no order as to costs.<o:p></o:p>