THE REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT & ORS, EX PARTE: P P E LIMITED & PAUL JURIC

R U L I N G

DR. DATE-BAH, J.S.C: This case, for me, raises an issue of civil liberty. I am glad that this Court on 23rd October, 2007 was able to reach the decision that the ruling of Justice Gyaesayor dated the 25th day of June 2007 in a matter entitled Unique Trust Financial Services v PPE Limited and One other (Suit NO. AC94/2004) be brought up to the Court and quashed and that the said judge be prohibited from hearing a contempt application pending before him in the High Court. On that date, the Court indicated that it would give its reasons for its ruling today.

The issue of civil liberty raised is whether in this day and age imprisonment should be an option available for failure to pay a debt. I very much doubt whether this is a restriction on personal liberty that is justifiable in a civilized democratic society. Accordingly, only very clear and compelling statutory language would persuade me to reach the conclusion that a person should go to jail for the inability of his company to pay a debt, which is the essence of the facts of this case. My reasons for joining in the decision to quash the ruling of the learned High Court judge are what I have set out below.

The facts of the case are as follows: the Second Respondent was a judgment creditor of the First Applicant for 1,328,797.091.00 cedis. After several failed efforts to execute this judgment, the Second Respondent filed an application before the First Respondent court for an order to require the First Applicant to pay the judgment debt within 6 weeks from the date of the application. The learned High Court judge duly ordered that the debt be paid within the indicated period of 6 weeks. Subsequently, when the First Applicant failed to comply with the order of the High Court, the Second Respondent filed a motion seeking to commit to prison for contempt the Second Applicant, in his capacity as a director of the First Applicant, for the First Applicant’s failure to comply with the court order to pay the judgment debt within the six weeks period. At the hearing of the motion for committal, counsel for the Second Applicant raised a preliminary objection to it, but the learned High Court judge overruled it. The Applicants therefore came before this Court to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction to quash the ruling of the learned High Court judge and to prohibit him from proceeding with the contempt proceedings pending before him.

Although article 14(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution permits the impriso