THE REPUBLIC VS HAIFA KYRIAKOS LABA & ORS
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Employment Law
- Constitutional Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Applicant moved to have the Respondents committed for contempt for holding a meeting against a court order. The Respondents filed to strike out the application on various grounds, such as inadequacy of affidavit, perjury, and procedural concerns. The Court ruled to adopt the supplementary affidavit despite its procedural irregularities and found that perjury allegations were not sufficient to strike out the contempt application. Additionally, the Court affirmed its power to refer lawyers to the General Legal Council for disciplinary actions. The Applicant's objections were partially upheld.
The Applicant in this case instituted the instant action on 11th of July, 2018 to commit the Respondents for contempt of Court for allegedly flouting an Order of the Court by holding a meeting in the face of a subsisting Order restraining them from doing so.
Upon service of the application on the Respondents, the 1st and 2nd Respondents on the 23rd of August, 2018, filed a motion on notice to strike out the Applicant’s action on the following grounds:
a. That the affidavit in support of the application for committal does not clearly state the charges of committal leveled against the Applicants.
b. That the Respondent’s application for committal is an abuse of the Court process because it is missing several exhibits.
c. That the Respondent did not quote his Tax Identification Number (TIN) on his application for committal.
d. That the Respondent perjured himself in paragraphs 3, 18 and 24 of the affidavit in support of the application for contempt.
The motion to strike out the application for contempt of court was followed by a supplementary affidavit filed on 4th September, 2018. It is this motion to strike out the substantive application that has engendered the legal objections raised by the substantive Applicant before the Court.
The objections are fourfold: 1. The first ground of objection seeks to attack the procedural propriety of the supplementary affidavit filed on 4th September, 2018. 2. Ground (d) of the application an allegations and/or reliefs being sought thereon are irrelevant to the present application as well as scandalous and ought to be struck out as such in limine; 3. The allegation of perjury under ground (d), being a criminal offense for which a punishment has been prescribed by law cannot properly ground an application for the application for committal to be struck out and as such ought to be struck out in limine; 4. The allegation of abetment of or conspiracy to commit perjury, being criminal offences for which punishments have been prescribed by law cannot be tried before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council which is not a court of competent jurisdiction and as such the relief being sought ought to be struck out in limine.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISIONS In this ruling, Counsel for the Applicant/Applicant raising the objection shall hereinafter be referred to as Applicant whilst the Respondent/Respondent shall be referred to as Respondent.
At the hearing of the legal objection, Counsel for the Applicant submitted as