Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
The matter before the Court is a motion on notice for an Order of Committal
for Contempt of Court. It was filed at the Registry of this Court on the 30th of
March 2022, pursuant to Order 50 Rule 1 of the High Court [Civil Procedure]
Rules, (2004) CI 47.
In the case of the Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu & Others; Ex Parte AttorneyGeneral [1995-96] 1 GLR 377@403, the learned Adade JSC (as he then was)
stated as follows:
“There are different forms of contempt. Underlying all of them, however, is
one basic notion, that the roadways and highways of public justice should at
all times be free from obstruction. Conduct which tends to create such an
obstruction constitutes contempt. Thus, interfering with witnesses or jurors;
frightening off parties to litigation; refusing to answer questions in court;
commenting on pending proceedings in such a manner as to prejudice the
outcome; running down the courts and the judges; refusing to obey an order
of a court; any of these, if calculated to, or tend to, impede or obstruct the
course of justice will constitute contempt. And conduct complained of
therefore must be viewed and assessed against the backdrop of this basic
principle”.
From the dictum above, it is clear that different types of conduct constitute
contempt of court.
One type is where a party files a motion, seeking to restrain the other parties
from interfering with the status quo or seeking a specific order from the Court
and the respondents proceed to interfere with the subject-matter of the
motion, in disregard to the pendency of the motion, ahead of the adjudicating
body taking a decision thereon.
Another type is the willful disobedience of an order or judgment of a court.
Parties’ Submissions
APPLICANT’S CASE
In a 24-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion, deponent, Kingsley
Sarpong, averred that on 7th December 2021, the applicants herein, who are
plaintiffs in a suit before a court, (differently constituted) filed an application
for interlocutory injunction, seeking an order to restrain the defendants
(respondents herein) and their agents from conducting elections scheduled for
th December 2021 or any other date, pending the determination of the
substantive suit.
He deposed further that on 9th February 2022, the Court refused the
application for interlocutory injunction.
Applicants, dissatisfied with the Court ruling, filed a Notice of Appeal on 18th
February, 2022.
But prior to that, i.e.,