THE REPUBLIC VERSUS COLLINS ANOKYE, PRINCE MENSAH & 18 OTHERS, EX PARTE: ACHEAMFOUR GROUP LIMITED & 4 OTHERS

It is provided under Order 50 rule 3(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.47) that:

“Without prejudice to the powers of the Court under Order 16 rule 7 no grounds except the grounds set out in the affidavit in support of the motion shall be relied upon at the hearing of an application for an order of committal.”

It is also provided under Order 16 rule 7(1) of C.I. 47 as follows:

“For the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties or of correcting any defect or error in the proceedings, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings either of its own motion or on the application of any party, order any document in the proceedings to be amended on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner as it may direct.”

In practice, many practitioners, and indeed, courts, have interpreted the above rules to mean that, without leave of court, a party to a contempt application cannot file a supplementary affidavit.

For the first time before us, counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Applicants (hereafter called Applicants), has by a motion filed on 23 April 2025, objected to the supplementary affidavit of Mrs. Sara Baah Acheamfour in support of the pending contempt application. The said supplementary affidavit was filed on 18 March 2025 (exhibit 1).

The gravamen of the application can be found in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the affidavit in support of the instant application and counsel for the Applicants based his submissions on these depositions. In sum, counsel for the Applicants argued, inter alia, that the Applicants/Respondents (hereafter called Respondents) violated Order 50 rule 3(3) of C.I. 47, supra, by filing a supplementary affidavit without leave of court. In particular, counsel submitted that the said supplementary affidavit is highly prejudicial having regard to the fact that the contempt application borders on the liberties of the respondents thereto. He prayed this court to strike out the noncompliant supplementary affidavit.

The answer of the Respondents is encapsulated in a 11-paragraphed affidavit in opposition, filed on 6 May 2025. Essentially, counsel for the Respondents relied on the depositions of this affidavit and argued that, leave is not required to file a supplementary affidavit under Order 50 rule 3(3) of C.I. 47. He submitted that the Court of Appeal being a Superior Court of Judicature can permit or admit additional or supplementar