February 3, 2010
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Atuguba JSC, considered an application for certiorari arising from a contempt conviction entered by Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, a Commercial Division judge who had been authorized by the Chief Justice to sit as a vacation judge and preside over the Land Division during the 2008 legal vacation. The applicant, an executor of the late Samuel Christian Appenteng’s estate, had obtained a writ of possession and a subsequent order for forcible entry and arrest after interested parties allegedly obstructed execution. Following allegations that the applicant and a co-defendant forcibly removed beneficiaries’ equipment, the interested parties pursued contempt, and the High Court convicted. The Supreme Court held that although contempt is a standalone substantive matter, Tanko Amadu’s cross-division authority was limited to the vacation period and had lapsed by 20/10/2008. Nonetheless, certiorari was refused because the applicant failed to object to jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity, with the Court emphasizing the discretionary nature of the remedy, the need to curb forum shopping, and the absence of any error on the face of the record.
ATUGUBA, JSC:-
Briefly stated, the facts of this case are as follows. The applicant until recently, one of the executors of the will of the late Samuel Christian Appenteng, on 18/4/2008 obtained, in a chain of steps, leave for the issue of a writ of possession, in respect of one of the properties of the estate of the said testator. However the purported execution of this writ was obstructed by the interested parties herein. The applicant thereupon obtained on 22/5/2008 an order for forcible entry and arrest of any person who would seek to obstruct the same. Meanwhile the interested parties had commenced an action on the 16/12/2007 against the interested parties impeaching the purported disposal of the disputed property.
After an initial ex-parte interim injunction on 16/5/2008, the interested parties, on 30/5/2008 brought an application on notice for the same which was adjourned to 16/10/2008 for Ruling. Before the Ruling could be given, the interested parties claim per paragraph 15 of their affidavit herein that “the applicant herein and 4th Defendant without waiting for the ruling of the Court on 8th day of July 2008 entered the premises threw out the beneficiaries and forcibly removed the machines being used by the said beneficiaries and thereby destroying the said machines and used forklift to remove the machines from the premises into the pavement and left the machines to the mercy of the sun"
They therefore on 7/8/2008 filed a motion for contempt against them. This contempt motion was heard and the applicants found guilty of contempt by Tanko Amadu J, a judge of the Commercial Division of the High Court, on 20/10/2008.
As the original proceedings of this case had been pending in the ordinary High Court, the applicant contends that (1) Tanko Amadu J as a judge of the Commercial Division had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the contempt application and (2) since they acted on the orders of the High Court Tanko Amadu J was wrong in adjudging them guilty of contempt.
This is a matter which, ex facie, could have been disposed of by this court upon hearing the motion without adjournment. However the terrain of the manner in which the judicial divisions and judges generally, should operate in the exercise of their jurisdiction is one that has reared its head again strongly and more and more light continues to be shed on it.
This court has held in Republic v. High Court, Ex parte Yalley (Gyane & Ottor Interested Parties) [2007-2008]SC GLR 512 th