THE REPUBLIC vs. EBUSUAPANYIN KOJO EWIAH HAMMOND EX PARTE OPANIN KWAMINA AMOESI & ANOR [2019]DLHC7053

THE REPUBLIC vs. EBUSUAPANYIN KOJO EWIAH HAMMOND EX PARTE OPANIN KWAMINA AMOESI... [2019]DLHC7053

Date	2019-07-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E9/14/19
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7053

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.

STEPHEN K KESSE ESQ. FOR APPLICANTS.

EMMANUEL ARTHUR ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC7053
																																						<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>EBUSUAPANYIN KOJO EWIAH
HAMMOND<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE OPANIN KWAMINA
AMOESI &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<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. E9/14/19&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:
23RD JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>STEPHEN
K KESSE ESQ. FOR APPLICANTS.<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">

EMMANUEL ARTHUR ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.<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;line-height:115%;
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>The critical issue that has arisen
in this contempt application is whether or not the respondent once found liable
and dealt with by this court (differently constituted) could be re-arraigned to
answer a fresh charge of contempt on substantially the same set of facts. It is
contended that this fresh application is incompetent or otherwise an abuse of
the process of the court and ought to be dismissed. But how did the whole
controversy begin?<o:p></o:p>The applicant filed an application
in the High Court pursuant to section 2 of the Head of Family Accountability
Law, 1985, PNDCL 114 seeking an order compelling the respondent to account for
the income that had accrued to their Royal Abrotu Ebiradze family as head of
the said family. The said application was referred to an ADR process but
settlement was not achieved. It does appear from the record though the
respondent sought to dispute the fact that in the attempted settlement, he had
delivered a statement of account which was found not satisfactory. In any event
the court presided over by SEDINA AGBEMAVA J in the end granted the order
sought when the application was returned to be determined on merits. Eventually
when the order to account was not satisfied, the applicant filed against the
respondent, the first application for an order of committal for contempt. <o:p></o:p>On the 18th of May 2018,
this court presided over by AMOAKO ASANTE J found the respondent liable for
contempt. The court however granted the respondent “the chance to purge his
contempt by filing the required family account as ordered by the High Court
within two weeks...”<o:p></o:p>The court also awarded costs of
GHc5000 for the applicant against the respondent adjourning the matter to 7th
June 2018. <o:p></o:p>On the return date when the matter
came for further orders, the notes of the court showed the following:<o:p></o:p>“Case
adjourned to 07/06/2018 for the respondent to purge his contempt by filing the
appropriate accounts as ordered by the court. On the return date the matter has
been called and the applicants have personally admitted that they have received
the requested accounts from the respondent as Counsel for the respondent has
informed the court. They also admit that he has paid the cost of GHc5000.00 to
them, I have therefore had mercy on the respondent and I acquit and discharge
him.”<o:p></o:p>This obviously should have ended the
matter. <o:p></o:p>The applicant however claims to have
discovered later that the account filed which the court relied upon as
sufficient to purge the contempt was not different from the earlier one which
had been found not satisfactory. The applicant therefore came before this court
with the fresh application to commit the respondent for contempt. <o:p></o:p>The first question to pose is, of which
order or proceeding is the respondent in contempt of in the present application?
Could it be the order or proceeding of AMOAKO ASANTE J on 18th May
2018? I doubt that the respondent could be in contempt of the order or
proceeding of that day because by the court’s own orders of 7th
June, the respondent had complied with the 18th May orders. It does
appear also that as far as the court was concerned, that was the first time the
respondent was presenting the particular accounts before it. Whatever it was
that was presented, the applicant showed his approval and the court acted upon
it. Those orders would not by themselves give rise to contempt. <o:p></o:p>It will seem to be the applicant’s
grievance that by submitting the same account which had been found not satisfactory,
the order of SEDINA AGBEMAVA J on the respondent to account remained
unsatisfied and therefore the respondent ought to be punished for disobeying
that order. Herein lies the much more difficult question. For the law seems to
frown upon subjecting a contemnor who has been found liable and dealt with to
another charge of contempt on the same set of facts. <o:p></o:p>The supreme court was confronted
with a similar question in the case of the REPUBLIC VRS NII ADAMAH THOMPSON
&amp; ORS EX PARTE NII TETTEH AHINAKWA II Suit No. J4/46/2010 Judgment dated 16th
January 2014. <o:p></o:p>Benin JSC spoke eloquently on the
issue when facts similar to what obtain here arose thus:<o:p></o:p>“Contempt
is a quasi-criminal offence. Therefore, once a court has made a finding of
guilt or otherwise on the same facts, another court cannot try the same
person/s on the same charge. It would amount to double jeopardy. Thus, the
second High Court presided over by Dzakpasu J had no right to re-try the
appellants on the same facts that they had not done a proper handing over and
so were in contempt. They had been tried convicted and penalized. Thus subject
to the right of appeal, the matter was closed. The finding of fact by made by
Lartey-Young J that proper handing over had been made created issue estoppel between
the parties and their privies.” <o:p></o:p>The Court of Appeal had also reached
a similar conclusion in the case of ABRAHAM alias SALLOUM VRS SALLOUM
(1989/90)2 GLR 19. What happened in that case was that the High Court presided
over by OMARI-SASU J on 16th February 1988 ordered the defendant to
file accounts as an administrator of the estate of a deceased person within two
weeks. On failing to comply with the order, leave was obtained to issue a writ
of attachment to commit the defendant for contempt. At the hearing on 18th
July 1988, </main>