THE REPUBLIC vs DANIEL OFORI & ORS
May 16, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, HIGH COURT JUDGE.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
May 16, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Yaa Amampene sought the High Court’s coercive powers to punish Daniel Ofori (Managing Director/CEO), the General Manager, and Advance Ventures Development Ltd for contempt after they obstructed her access to a rented shop in Accra by welding its doors and piling sand and heavy items in front. In the underlying District Magistrate Court proceedings before His Worship Isaac Addo, the company was ordered on 16 and 31 October 2018 to remove obstacles and allow access, or else Amampene could clear and surcharge them. Despite this, photographs showed the heap had increased by 2 November 2018, and Ofori allegedly disrupted workers engaged by Amampene. The High Court held the three elements of contempt—existence of a court order, knowledge, and wilful disobedience—were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Recognizing that the Respondents later purged the contempt, the Court imposed fines of GH¢5,000 each, with 14-day imprisonment in default, and admonished adherence to lawful processes over self-help.
The Applicant on the 14th of November, 2018, mounted this action against the Respondents for an order of this Court to commit the Respondents to prison for contempt of court.
THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT.
The Applicant’s claim is contained in the affidavit in support of the application filed on the 14th of November, 2018, a summation of which is as follows: According to the Applicant, she rented a shop, for the purposes of trading, from the 3rd Respondent, with the 1st and 2nd Respondents at all material times acting as the Managing Director and General Manager respectively of the 3rd Respondent.
It is the case of the Applicant that on 13th of September, 2018, the 3rd Respondent instituted a suit against her in the District Magistrate court in respect of the shop she had rented.
The Applicant attached the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim of the said suit as Exhibit ‘A’. The Applicant continues that on 15th of September, 2018, she went to the shop to find out that the doors had been welded together and a heap of sand, together with other heavy items, dumped in front of the shop.
That upon inquiring, she was informed that it was the 1st and 2nd Respondents who had perpetuated the acts complained of.
Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’ are pictures of the alleged state of the shop on 15th and 18th of September, 2018. The Applicant continues further that on the 16th of October, 2018, the District court was informed of the conduct of the Respondents.
That the court ordered the Respondents to remove the obstacles and grant the Applicant access to the shop by noon the next day, that is, 17th of October, 2018. It is the case of the Applicant that as at the 18th of October, 2018, the Respondents had failed to comply with the order of the court but instead, filed an application to the court to set aside its order.
According to the Applicant, on the 31st of October, 2018, the court dismissed this application and further ordered the Respondents to clear the heap in front of the shop to enable the Applicant access her shop, failing which the Applicant was to clear the sand and surcharge the Respondents with the cost for doing so.
Exhibit‘E’ is a copy of the order of the court made on the 31st of October, 2018. The Applicant says further that on or about the 1st of November 2018, she engaged the services of some persons to clear the heap of sand in front of the shop.
However, the 1st Respondent interrupted this work by causing chaos at the site.
The Applicant states that