THE REPUBLIC vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ALLIANCE MOTORS LTD EXPARTE: JOANA EWURABENA OCRAN [2020]DLCA9255

THE REPUBLIC vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ALLIANCE MOTORS LTD EXPARTE: JOANA EWURABENA... [2020]DLCA9255

Date	2020-05-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/103/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLCA9255

VICTOR D. OFOE JA

CECILA HANZZY SOWAH JA

P. BRIGHT MENSAH JA

[2020]DLCA9255
																																						<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>MANAGING DIRECTOR ALLIANCE
MOTORS LTD<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE: JOANA EWURABENA
OCRAN<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.&nbsp;&nbsp; H1/103/2019&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:
28TH MAY, 2020<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

VICTOR
D. OFOE JA, CECILA HANZZY SOWAH JA AND P. BRIGHT MENSAH JA<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>On the 26th
day of March 2018, the Financial &amp; Economic Crime Division of the Accra
High Court presided over by Georgina Mensah-Datsa J, (as she then was)
dismissed the contempt application brought before it by the Applicant/Appellant
herein against the Respondent/Respondent herein. &nbsp;It is against the ruling of the court that
this instant appeal has been launched.&nbsp; The
only ground of appeal is that the Ruling is against the weight of
evidence.&nbsp; The notice of appeal appears
on p. 23 of the record of appeal
whilst the Ruling complained of, appears on pp 21-22 of the record of appeal. &nbsp;I shall simply refer to the
applicant/appellant as the “appellant” and the Respondent/Respondent as the
“contemnor/respondent”.<o:p></o:p>Facts:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>It is
common ground that the Accra High Court differently constituted gave judgment
in or about 2015 in favour of the Appellant in a case in which she had sued the
PHC Motors as the defendants.&nbsp; In an
attempt to enforce execution of the judgment, the Appellant filed garnishee
proceedings against the Respondent on the account that it was believed the
judgment/debtor, PHC Motors Ltd had some shares in Alliance Motors Ltd, the
contemnor/ respondent. &nbsp;It appears
undisputed that Alliance Motors Ltd [contemnor/ respondent] was formed by Tata
Motors and PHC Motors.&nbsp; It is claimed
that PHC Motors held 40% shares in contemnor/respondent held in the name of
Paul Peprah, the Managing Director and the sole owner of PHC Motors.&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The High
Court, Accra before whom the garnishee proceedings were held, made a finding of
fact that PHC Motors held some shares in Alliance Motors, the contemnor/respondent.
&nbsp;Additionally, it found that Paul Peprah,
the Managing Director of PHC Motors Ltd was the sole owner of the company that
had 40% shares in Alliance Motors, contemnor/respondent. &nbsp;Based on these findings, the court ordered
that the 40% shares held in the name of Paul Peprah in PHC Motors Ltd be sold
in satisfaction of the judgment debt standing in the appellant’s favour that stood
at Ghc60,000.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant complains that the contemnor/respondent has refused to comply with
the order of the court and that triggered the contempt proceedings resulting in
the instant appeal before us.&nbsp; This is
because at the end of the contempt proceedings, the court presided over by
Mensah-Datsa J (as she then was) held that the appellant was unable to
establish a case to warrant the respondent being held in contempt.&nbsp; Consequently, the court dismissed the case
against the contemnor/respondent.&nbsp; Being
dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguments
of Counsel for the appellant:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As stated
supra, the only ground of appeal is that the trial court’s ruling dismissing
the contempt application was against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To begin
with, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the decision in Koglex
Ltd (No.2) v Field (2002) SCGLR 175 to argue that where an appeal
as in the instant case was based on the sole ground that the judgment was
against the weight of evidence, the appellate court is enjoined to examine for
itself whether or not the findings of the trial court were supportable by the
evidence and the law properly applied to the case.&nbsp; It invariably involved the rehearing of the
case, he stated.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel then
referred to the court’s order Exhibit A, the anchor on which the instant appeal
hinges and has contended that the order of the court was made known to the
contemnor/respondent when a copy was served on the Managing Director whilst his
representative was also in court during and at the hearing of the garnishee
proce</main>