JUDGMENT OF LAMPTEY J.A.
The genesis of the present appeal would be found in that part of the judgment of Omari-Sasu J. dated 16 February 1988 which ordered the defendant-appellant among other commands issued by the learned judge to:
"(b) to file a statement of account of his stewardship, i.e. from the date of grant of letters of administration up to the date of this judgment. This is to be done within two weeks from today."
From the record of proceedings herein the defendant and his advisers were in court when the above judgment was read and the said [p.21] order decreed by the trial judge. On 13 June 1988, I. K. Dotse, the solicitor for and on behalf of Abraham Salloum who described himself as lawful attorney of Alexandra Aziz Salloum filed a motion for "leave to apply for an order of attachment of Emile Salloum for contempt pursuant to Order 59, r. 21 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A)." It would appear that on the very day, 13 June 1988, the High Court presided over by Omari-Sasu J. dismissed an application by the defendant for stay of execution of this judgment of 16 February 1988.
Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the refusal of his application to stay that judgment, the defendant herein promptly repeated that application before the Court of Appeal. His application for stay of execution of Omari-Sasu J.'s judgment of 16 February 1988, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 11 July 1988.
The above steps taken by the defendant had the effect of postponing the hearing and determination of the contempt proceedings pending before Omari-Sasu J. In the meantime pursuant to leave granted to the plaintiff-respondent herein, he proceeded to issue a writ of attachment for contempt against the defendant herein as contemnor on 14 June 1988. That application for attachment of the defendant for contempt was heard on 18 July 1988. The relevant court notes for that day read thus:
"By court. The application for contempt is struck out as withdrawn. The defendant is to pay ¢5,000 costs to the plaintiff. Case adjourned to 15 August 1988 to announce settlement, before the vacation judge."
(The emphasis is mine.)
I must mention in passing that on 18 July 1988, both the defendant and the plaintiff who were each present in court together with their respective legal advisers knew or ought reasonably to have known that the decision reached by the court was as reproduced above. The court's decision was based on an application by learned counsel f
