January 16, 2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal judgment, authored by A. M. Domakyaareh (Mrs.), J.A., arises from contempt convictions imposed by the High Court (Sekondi) on D.V. Kofi Afewu, the Regional General Manager of Electricity Company of Ghana, and Terry Darko, Managing Director of Mechanical Lloyd Company Ltd. The applicants, Takoradi Flour Mills Ltd and Mantrac Co. Ltd, had previously obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining ECG from routing 33KV overhead lines within 10.6 meters of Mantrac’s Plot No. 10 on Cape Coast Road, Takoradi. When ECG re-routed underground cables through Mechanical Lloyd’s yard, the High Court treated this as disobedience and convicted both officers. On appeal, the panel held the contempt proceedings were procedurally defective: the title misnamed corporate parties, personal service on the officers was absent, the injunction’s wording did not clearly cover underground cabling, and key factual assertions and public-interest considerations were ignored. The Court set aside the convictions, sentences, and costs, emphasizing clarity, proper service, corporate capacity, and the four elements of contempt.
JUDGMENT
A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J.A
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of His Lordship Justice Uuter Paul Dery, Justice of the High Court, Sekondi dated 16th March, 2015 in which the Appellants were convicted for Contempt of court. The Application for the attachment/committal for Contempt of the Appellants was filed on 31st December, 2014 before a differently constituted court. The reasons given by the Applicants, per their Affidavit in Support and accompanying Exhibits are that they the Applicants, sometime in May 2013 issued a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) claiming inter alia, a declaration that the intended route for the construction of the 33KV overhead line from Kwame Nkrumah Circle to the Paa Grant Circle is wrongful.
The Applicants then applied for an Interlocutory Injunction to restrain the ECG in the following terms:
An order of the court to restrain “the defendant, whether by itself, its agents, assigns, privies, servants etc howsoever from routing the 33KV over-head lines between 10 - 25 meters from the plaintiff’s boundary on plot No. I0, Cape Coast Road, Takoradi. “And for further order restraining the defendant, whether by itself, its servants, agents, privies, assigns howsoever from constructing an electric pylon within 10 - 25 meters radius of the plaintiff’s plot No. 10 Cape Coast Road, Takoradi.”
2. The application was opposed and at the end of the arguments for and against same, the High Court, as differently constituted, granted the application for interlocutory injunctions in these terms on 24th July, 2013.
“… the application for injunction against the Respondent is granted and the defendant, whether by itself, agents, servants, privies etc howsoever are restrained from routing the 33KV overhead lines between 10.6 meters from the plaintiff’s boundary on Plot No. 10, Cape Coast Road, or doing any act in that regard (sic) in Takoradi until the matter is determined as per the motion paper.
For obvious reasons, it is ordered that copies of this order and or the ruling be served on the
S.T.M.A. and Mechanical Lloyd who have been joined to this suit for their attention.”
3. After this ruling of 24th July, 2013, the parties tried to settle the matter out of court but were not successful. The Applicants deposed in their Affidavit in Support of the Application for Contempt that in utter disregard of the orders of the court, ECG and Mechanical Lloyd and in a clear attempt