2001
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court, per Kpegah J.S.C., addressed whether disobedience of a court’s order or process can be justified on the ground that it is void, erroneous, or improvidently made. The case arose after Defendants, having been ejected under a writ of possession obtained by the Plaintiffs, re-entered the property by self-help while a stay motion was pending. They were convicted of contempt in the High Court and sought certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court, claiming legal error because the writ issued despite the stay application. The Supreme Court had already dismissed those applications and, on review, reaffirmed that orders of courts of competent jurisdiction must be obeyed unless and until set aside. Citing Russell v East Anglian Railway Co., M’Foy v U.A.C., Mosi v Bagyina, Kumnipah v Ayirebi, and Republic v Brew, the Court emphasized public policy: litigants may not decide validity; challenges must be made in the proper forum. The review application was dismissed.
KPEGAH, J.S.C.:
In the case of RUSSEL VRS. EAST ANGLIAN RAILWAY CO. (1850) 42 E.R. 201 Truro, L.C. at page 206 delivered himself thus:
"I have looked with care through the very numerous authorities that have been cited, but it is not necessary for me to go through them. The result appears to be this, that it is an established rule of this Court that it is not open to any party to question the orders of this Court, or any process issued under the authority of this Court, by disobedience. I know of no act which this Court may do, which may not be questioned in a proper forum, and on a proper application; but I am of the opinion that it is not competent for anyone to interfere with the possession of a receiver, or to disobey an injunction or any other order of the Court, on the ground that such orders were improvidently made. Parties must take a proper course to question their validity, but while they exist they must be obeyed. I consider the rule to be of such importance to the interest of and safety of the public, and to the due administration of justice, that it ought, on all occasions, to be inflexibly maintained. I do not see how the Court can expect its officers to do their duty, if they do it under the peril of resistance, and of that resistance being justified on grounds tending to the impeachment of the order under which they are acting".
The above dictum is given prominence in this ruling not only because of its relevance but also because it adequately expresses our views on the applicable law in the instant case. The facts in RUSSEL VRS EAST ANGLIAN RAILWAY CO. (supra) are that property in possession of a receiver and manager appointed by the Court in a suit was seized by the Sheriff under a writ of fi-fa. The order appointing the receiver ought not to have been made in the first case. Contempt proceedings were initiated against the Sheriff for disturbing the possession of the receiver and manager. It was contended on behalf of the Sheriff that where the order for the appointment of a receiver ought not to have been made, the Court should not, in the exercise of its discretion, commit the Sheriff for interfering with the possession of the receiver. This argument prompted the Lord Chancellor to deliver the above quoted dictum.
The facts of the instant case are that the Applicants (hereinafter referred to as the Defendants) had judgment entered against them in the Circuit Court on the 21st of October, 1999. The Court ordered them to give up posse