ASUMADU-SAKYI II v. OWUSU AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.

Apaloo C.J. delivered the ruling of the court. The applicant invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to order his release from prison where he is at present incarcerated for contempt of court. The applicant seems to have had in connection with this matter, two spells of imprisonment. At first, he was imprisoned on 30 March 1979. On 6 November of that year, he was released on certain conditions which he failed to meet. He was again imprisoned on 12 February 1980 and is still in prison now. He has been in prison for seven months on the first spell and just over nine months on the second. Accordingly, in connection with this matter, he has been in prison for an aggregate period of over sixteen months.

The reason proffered for the present application, is that he should be released from prison to enable him raise the necessary funds so he can comply with the order for whose disobedience he was incarcerated. It was also alleged, in effect, that having been in prison for over twelve months, the purpose of his punishment for contempt has been duly served.

The respondents dispute that this court has an inherent jurisdiction to entertain this matter and argues that it is incompetent. At all events, the respondents say the applicant has not met the condition imposed for his release and is in no position to meet it now and could not properly be released. The respondents say the applicant should remain in prison, at least until his appeal on the substantive matter has been disposed of but that if the court should feel disposed to order his release, it should be on very stringent conditions.

The facts which prompted the order for his imprisonment are not in dispute. Judgment for a large amount of money was given against him by the High Court, Kumasi, on, 19 October 1978. He was ordered to pay the judgment debt of just over one million cedis within ten days of the judgment. As a result of the applicant’s failure to make this payment, the respondents applied to the court to have him committed for contempt. By an order dated 13 March 1979, the court ordered the applicant to pay the sum of just over ¢776,000 on or before 27 March 1979. He was unable to do so. Accordingly, on 30 March, he was committed to prison for an indefinite period for contempt of court—the sting of the contempt being the disobedience of the court's order.

It would seem that at some time subsequent to his imprisonment, he caused to be paid just over ¢354,000. That pa