THE REPUBLIC vs. MESSRS EUROGET DE-INVEST, DR. SAID DERAZ AND BRIGADIER-GENERAL COSMOS ALHASSAN EX PARTE: M. BARBISOTTI & SONS LIMITED [2019]DLHC7262

THE REPUBLIC vs. MESSRS EUROGET DE-INVEST, DR. SAID DERAZ AND BRIGADIER-GENERAL... [2019]DLHC7262

Date	2019-04-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. MISC/0001/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7262

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

BENJAMIN SACKAR FOR APPLICANT

YAW ESHUN FOR 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS

NELSON ATANGA AYAMDOOR (LED BY LT. COL. FELIX KORBIEH) FOR 3RD RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC7262
																																						<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" >IN THE
MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>IN THE
MATTER OF THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MESSRS
EUROGET DE-INVEST, DR. SAID DERAZ AND BRIGADIER-GENERAL COSMOS ALHASSAN<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: M. BARBISOTTI &amp; SONS LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
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. MISC/0001/2019&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: 30TH APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>BENJAMIN
SACKAR FOR APPLICANT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YAW
ESHUN FOR 1ST &amp; 2ND RESPONDENTS <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">

NELSON
ATANGA AYAMDOOR (LED BY LT. COL. FELIX KORBIEH) FOR 3RD RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (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="margin-bottom:0in;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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>The Applicant in the instant contempt
proceedings pray this Court for an order committing the Respondents herein for
contempt, in that the Respondents have in a manner acted or conducted
themselves to undermine, disrespect or prejudiced the authority of the Court.<o:p></o:p>Briefly, the material facts which gave
rise to the present proceedings are that the 1st Respondent was
awarded a contract by the Ghana Government to construct a number of Hospitals
in Ghana.&nbsp; In its efforts to carry out
its mandate, the 1st Respondent engaged the Applicant for the
construction of a Military Hospital in Afari near Kumasi.&nbsp; 1st Respondent and the Applicant
entered into a contract to that effect.&nbsp;
A purported termination of the contract, among other things, started a
bitter litigation between 1st Respondent and the Applicant.&nbsp; The Applicant contends that whiles an aspect
of the suit was pending before Court, the 1st and 2nd
Respondents, in gross disregard of the application before the Court, sent
several correspondences to the Applicant which sought to undermine the
authority of the Court.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Furthermore, the Applicant contends
that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have threatened to sell
the equipment of the Applicant at the project site notwithstanding the pendency
of the application for Interlocutory Injunction.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The Applicant further states that
notwithstanding the pendency of this application for Interim Injunction, the 1st
and 2nd Respondents have granted&nbsp;
access to the project site to another company for it to evaluate the
extent of work left to be done in a bid to engage the services of a third
party.&nbsp; It is therefore the case of the
Applicant that these conduct of the 1st and 2nd
Respondents had been done to bring the administration of law and justice into
disrepute, disrespect and ridicule.<o:p></o:p>In respect of the 3rd
Respondent, the Applicant contends that, as the General-Officer Commanding of
the Central Command, the 3rd Respondent allowed his men to stop the
workers of the Applicant from loading materials and prevented the driver of one
of the trucks from driving the truck out of the project site by blocking the
entrance of the project site with a military vehicle.&nbsp; In the view of the Applicant, this conduct of
the military personnel constitutes contempt and the 3rd Respondent
being General-Officer Commanding of the Central Command should be punished for
such conduct of his officers.<o:p></o:p>The 1st and 2nd
Respondents contend that at the time the application for Interim Injunction was
filed, the Applicant had been expelled from the project site in line with the
contractual provisions of the FIDIC rules which governed the relationship
between them and the Applicant.&nbsp; The 2nd
Respondent further stated that he had not at any time assisted and or
encouraged any other person to breach an order of the Court or taken any action
to impede or interfere with the course of justice.&nbsp; In response to the contention of the
Applicant that the 1st Respondent had written a letter to Applicant,
in which said letter the 1st Respondent is said to have referred to
the Court as “contractually incompetent resolution authority”, the 1st
Respondent contends that the said letter was written by someone with no legal
background and further that the said phrase was meant to say that the Court had
no jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant’s suit because of the existence of
the Arbitration Clause in the contract executed between 1st
Respondent and the Applicant.&nbsp; The 1st
Respondent further contends that in writing the said letter, it had no mens rea to denigrate the Court.<o:p></o:p>On his part, the 3rd
Respondent raised a preliminary point of law, that is, that he was only served
with a supplementary affidavit in support of the Amended Motion; a
supplementary affidavit of Ebenezer Essel and a supplementary affidavit of
Charles Sarpong.&nbsp; 3rd Respondent
further contends that he was served with a Motion on Notice for an order for
contempt with an affida</main>