THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), EX PARTE: YVONNE AMPONSAH BROBBEY AND GLADYS NKRUMAH [2023]DLSC12147

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), EX PARTE: YVONNE AMPONSAH BR... [2023]DLSC12147

Date	2023-02-01
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/82/2022
Citation No.	[2023]DLSC12147

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

KULENDI JSC

FRANK ASAMOAH ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.

KWESI AFRIFA ESQ. FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.

[2023]DLSC12147
																																						<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" ><div class="WordSection1">

THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA EX PARTE: YVONNE
AMPONSAH BROBBEY<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>

AND <o:p></o:p>

GLADYS NKRUMAH<o:p></o:p>

(INTERESTED
PARTY)<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/82/2022 &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: 1ST&nbsp;FEBRUARY
2023&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>

COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>

<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">FRANK ASAMOAH ESQ. FOR THE
APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">KWESI AFRIFA ESQ. FOR
THE INTERESTED PARTY.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING),
OWUSU (MS.) JSC,
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC, PROF.
MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC, KULENDI JSC<o:p></o:p>

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>

&nbsp;

KULENDI JSC:-

INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>

The
Applicant invokes our supervisory jurisdiction for an order of certiorari to quash
the ruling of the High Court (Commercial Division), dated 7th June, 2022. The
said ruling entailed the dismissal of a preliminary legal objection to the High
Court's jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order to punish the Applicant
for intermeddling pursuant to Order 66 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules,
2004 (C.I. 47).

<a name="_"></a><a name="Page_2"></a>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p>

On
the 19th of May, 2022, the Interested Party herein filed a motion on notice
under Order 66 Rule 3 of C.I. 47 praying for an order to punish the Applicant
herein for intermeddling in the estate of one Richard Nkrumah (deceased), the
father of the Applicant who died intestate on 31st October 2019.

The
Applicant caused her solicitors to file a Notice of Preliminary Legal Objection
on 2nd June, 2022 contending that: intermeddling under Order 66 of C.I. 47 being
a criminal offence cannot be prosecuted by private citizens via motion in civil
proceedings; that the Rules of Court Committee acted in excess of its jurisdiction
by purporting to create a criminal offence under Order 66 Rule 4 of C.I. 47;
and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application to punish
for intermeddling in the manner prayed by the Interested Party.

After
hearing both sides, the Trial Court, by a ruling dated 7th June, 2022,
dismissed the preliminary legal objection and found that an action to punish
for intermeddling may be commenced by civil proceedings and therefore, it had
the jurisdiction to hear the Interested Party's application. It is against this
ruling that the Applicant has brought the instant motion invoking our
supervisory jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;GROUNDS FOR APPLICATION

The grounds of this application as stated on the face of the motion paper are as follows:<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
i.