THE REPUBLIC vs EKOW EWUSI OF NYAME TUMI SO MART EX PARTE WEST AFRICA QUARRY LIMITED
March 31, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AFI AGBANU KUDOMOR
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
March 31, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
MOTION ON MOTICE FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT
On 21st December 2021, this Court ordered Respondent to return a Mirage Air Compressor and Caterpillar Dump Truck to Applicant. According to Applicant, Respondent has failed to comply with the said Court order and for that reason, he should be committed to prison.
The facts of this case are that on 31st July 2015, the High Court in Suit Number: BDC/66/12 titled West Africa Quarry Limited v Godfred Summabe & 3 Others entered Judgment for the Defendants on the Counterclaims and awarded damages in their favour.
Applicant appealed against the said Judgment to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal; therefore, setting aside the High Court Judgment on the Defendants’ Counterclaims on 24th May, 2018.
Before the Court of Appeal Judgment, 3rd Defendant had levied execution of the High Court Judgment against Applicant’s mining equipment and limestone and appointed Respondent who is an Auctioneer to auction same.
Following the Court of Appeal decision, Applicant demanded the return of equipment not sold at the date of the Judgment. Respondent in response admitted that all the items had been sold except the two items mentioned above.
This Court upon an application by Applicants for the release of the said items ordered Respondent to release the said equipment to Applicant within Ten (10) days. The said order was attached as Exhibit ‘ETA6’.
Although the said order was served on Respondent on 17th January 2022, Respondent has failed to comply with the said Court order. The search report indicating Respondent was served is attached as Exhibit ‘ETA7’.
According to Applicant, Respondent’s disobedience of the said Court order is willful for which he ought to be punished and committed to prison.
In the affidavit in opposition, Respondent stated that the assets were seized in execution of the Judgment was by Mafti Meg Mart on 9th June, 2016. The inventory of items seized is attached as Exhibit ‘HEE1’.
That on 26th January, 2017 and 6th February 2017, Respondent’s Nyame Tumi So (NTS) also seized some of the assets in execution. The said inventories are attached as Exhibit ‘HEE2’ and Exhibit ‘HEE3’ respectively.
That per Exhibit ‘HEE1’, the initial inventory by the first appointed Auctioneer clearly shows one CAT Dump Truck; and the subsequent attachment on 26th January, 2017 by Respondent’s Nyame Tumi So also shows the same one CAT Dump Truck as per Exhibit ‘HEE2’.
That some of the attached items including the CAT Dump T
AI Generated Summary
The High Court, per Her Ladyship Justice Afi Agbanu Kudomor, adjudicated a motion for contempt against an auctioneer appointed by the third defendant in earlier execution proceedings arising from Suit No. BDC/66/12 (West Africa Quarry Limited v. Godfred Summabe & 3 Others). After the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s judgment on the defendants’ counterclaims in May 2018, West Africa Quarry sought the return of equipment not sold. The auctioneer admitted only a Mirage Air Compressor and a Caterpillar dump truck remained. On 21 December 2021, the court ordered him to release those items within ten days; service was effected on 17 January 2022, but he did not comply. Applying the civil contempt standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court found the compressor was within the auctioneer’s custody (no proof of theft and no sale documentation), and convicted him, granting seven days to purge the contempt. However, based on the inventories and account sale, the court was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the auctioneer possessed the dump truck at the time of the order, and accordingly acquitted him of contempt as to that item.