2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a High Court ruling sentencing the applicant for contempt, finding the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the orders in question were made by the Court of Appeal. The applicant successfully argued significant errors and excesses in the contempt ruling, including the inappropriate aggregation of High Court and Court of Appeal orders. The Court reiterated that superior courts have distinct powers to commit for contempt separately and underscored the professional conduct expected in legal proceedings. The ruling emphasized the boundaries of judicial authority as delineated by the 1992 Constitution and procedural fairness.
AKOTO-BAMFO JSC.:-
On the 19th of January 2015, Adzagli J sitting at the High Court in Kumasi, in giving a ruling in a motion on notice for an order committing for contempt the applicant herein and I other, delivered himself thus:
“If it is for the sake of monetary gain that the 1st Respondent went beyond his professional duties to commit such grave contemptuous acts, it will be the unpleasant duty of this Court to deny him the fruits of that unlawful venture to serve as a deterrent. For this reason the Respondents are each sentenced to a fine of GH¢50,000.00 or in default 3 months imprisonment each.
I further order the Respondents to return all the machinery the subject matter of the preservation order to the place of preservation within 2 weeks if this has not already been done or pay the sum of GHC 1,500,000.00 being the cost of the said machinery.”
The applicant registered his protest against the orders of the High Court by promptly filing, firstly, a Notice of Appeal and secondly the application under consideration under article 132 of the 1992 Constitution and Rule 61(1)of CI.16, the Supreme Court Rules; praying for an order of certiorari directed at Adzagli J Kumasi for the purposes of quashing the said ruling in suit no C12/304/2013 and for a further order restraining the learned Judge from the further hearing of the matters arising from his ruling, he additionally prayed this court for an order of stay of proceedings.
The grounds upon which the application rested are set out in a 5 paragraphed Statement as follows:
GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION
1. The trial judge committed very significant/fundamental, material, grave and serious non-jurisdictional errors of law patent on the face of the record which are so plain as to make the impugned decision a complete nullity, and which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice to the applicant.
2. The conviction and sentence of the applicant by the trial Judge contravened the Waynesburg legal principles of unreasonableness, irrationality and unconscionability.
3. The trial high court judge in the exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction committed gross breaches/violations and abuses of article 296 (a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution when he acted arbitrarily, capriciously biased, personal dislike, unfair and without candor in his contempt ruling dated the 15th day of January, 2015.
4. The trial high court judge exceeded his jurisdiction and or otherwise acted without jurisdiction when he made t