FRANK OSEI BONSU vs ALEX ARMSTRONG

By a motion on notice for an order of committal filed on 18th November, 2022 the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”) prays this Honourable Court to commit the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) for contempt of court.

The Respondent filed an affidavit in opposition to the application on 29th March, 2023, wherein he raised a preliminary legal objection regarding the competence of the application. It is the learned Counsel for the Respondent’s submission that the Rules of Court have provided for the procedure that ought to be adopted and the conditions that must be satisfied before the jurisdiction of a Court of competent jurisdiction can be invoked to enforce an Order or a Judgment of the Court by means of Committal for Contempt. Counsel also submits that it is trite, from the often-quoted dictum in BOYEFIO v NTHC PROPERTIES LTD [1996-97] SCGLR 531 that “where an enactment had prescribed a special procedure by which something was to be done, it was that procedure alone that was to be followed”.

Counsel also contends that the rules relating to applications for committal for contempt of court were interpreted and applied by Jennifer Dadzie J (as she then was) in the REPUBLIC v ERNESTINA NYARKO ONOMAH [2018-2019] 2 GLR 262; and that the Supreme Court also recognized the importance of complying with those provisions before the jurisdiction of the Court can be invoked to hear and determine an application for an order for committal for contempt. See: REPUBLIC v. NII ADAMAH THOMPSON & 10 ORS. EX-PARTE NII TETTEH AHINAKWA II in Civil Appeal No. J4/46/2010 (Unreported).

It is the case of the Respondent that, from the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the instant application, there is no proof of service on the Respondent of the Court order allegedly flouted by the Respondent; neither is there any evidence of any Penal Notice served on him.

Therefore, the learned Counsel prays this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 81 rule 2, to set aside or dismiss the application for committal as same had been filed in breach of the applicable statutory provisions. Counsel reiterated the aphorism that the rules of Court are not ornamental pieces but are meant to be complied with especially in the instant case where the Fundamental Human Right of a citizen is at stake.

In response to the preliminary legal objection raised by Counsel for the Respondent, Counsel for the Applicant conten