THE REPUBLIC v. MARK DENNIS AMOO & 9 OTHERS
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an application for committal for contempt against senior officers of Standard Chartered Bank Ghana Limited by employees contesting a Memorandum of Understanding deemed fraudulent. The court held that the Respondents were in contempt for sending a redundancy package letter to the Applicants while litigation was pending, undermining the court's authority and prejudicing the outcome. The principle that contempt of court involves any act or omission that prejudices the fair trial or outcome of a case or undermines the court's authority was reinforced. The judgment emphasized that contempt is quasi-criminal, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and duty to obey court orders or ongoing legal processes.
JUDGMENT
APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT
Introduction:
[1] Any conduct which interferes with or undermines the authority of the Courts and administration of justice is contempt of court. Oswald on Contempt 3rd Edition defines contempt of court at page 6 as:
“…..Any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregards, or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants or their witnesses during litigation”.
[2] In National Union of Seamen vrs. TUC [1982-83] GLR 943, it was held that:
“a refusal or neglect to do an act required by a court order within a specified time or the disobedience to an order requiring a person to abstain from doing a specified act amounted to a civil contempt.”
[3] The power of the High Court to punish for contempt is provided in S.10 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and Articles 19(12) and 126 of the 1992 Republican Constitution of Ghana.
[4] Although Article 19(11) enacts that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence was defined and the penalty thereof prescribed in a written law, Clause 12 of Article 19 nevertheless stipulates that the superior courts reserve the power to punish a person for contempt notwithstanding that the acts or omissions constituting it, is not defined in a written law and the penalty thereof is not so prescribed.
[5] What constitutes contempt has been considered in legion of decided cases. It was judicially articulated in IN RE: EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS (No.2) EX PARTE AMEYAW II (1998-99) SCGLR 639 @ 660 where the Supreme Court speaking through ACQUAH JSC (as he then was) summed up the law in an apt and concise manner as follows:
“In brief, contempt is constituted by any act or omissions tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority.”
[6] In R v SITO I; EXPARTE FORDJOUR (2001-2002) SCGLR 322 the Supreme Court gave yet another dimension to the definition of contempt. Their Lordships gave the elements constituting the offence of contempt as that:-
a) there should have been a judgment or order which required the contemnor to do or abstain from doing something;
b) the contemnor knew what precisely he was expected to do or abstain from doing; and
c) that he failed to comply with the terms of that judgment or the order and that his disobedience was willful.
[7] It may, however, be argued that