THE REPUBLIC VS ISAAC KWAME AMANOR & ORS
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATRICIA QUANSAH
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolved around allegations of contempt of court by the Applicants against the Respondents in suit no. LC/095/2023. The Applicants claimed that the Respondents continued activities on disputed land in defiance of a court order. The court evaluated both parties' submissions, emphasizing the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt for contempt, as it is treated as a quasi-criminal matter. The court found that the Applicant did not establish the necessary proof linking the Respondents to the alleged contemptuous acts. Thus, the Respondents were acquitted and discharged, with costs awarded in their favor.
RULING ON A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
1. INTRODUCTION
[i] In REPUBLIC v NUMAPAU; EX PARTE AMEYAW II AND OTHERS [1999-2000] 1 GLR 283, the Supreme Court held:
Contempt of court was constituted by any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice or impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority. However, since contempt was quasi-criminal and the punishment for it might take various forms, including a fine or imprisonment, the standard of proof required to sustain liability was proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, … the applicant had to first make out a prima facie case of contempt against each of the respondents before the court could turn to consider the defences put up by the respondents.
[ii] Also, in the case of Republic v Nkansah, Supreme Court, 28 November 1995, (unreported) the power and authority of the Court was defined as follows:
“The power of this court to commit for contempt is granted by article 126 (2) of the Constitution, 1992. It is neither dependent on nor ancillary to any jurisdiction granted to this court by any statute or any other law ... not only to demand obedience to the court’s orders, but also vindicate its authority.”
It is therefore trite that anyone who willfully refuses to obey or fails to comply with any order(s) of any Court of competent jurisdiction can be held in contempt of Court.
[iii] Order 43 rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, CI 47 mandates an applicant to bring contempt proceedings against a person(s); whilst order 50 sets out the procedure for bringing contempt proceedings against a person or an entity.
Rule 5 of Order 43 provides:
(1) Where
(b) a person disobeys a judgment or order requiring the person to abstain from doing an act, the judgment or order may, subject to these Rules be enforced by one or more of the following means
(cc) an order of committal against that person …
[iv] The Lord Chancellor, Lord Truro in Russell vrs The East Anglian Railway Co; Exparte Bowes (1850) 42 ER 201 at page 206 held as follows:
“… It is an established rule of this Court that it is not open to any party to question the orders of this Court, or any process issued under the authority of this Court, by disobedience.
I know of no act which this Court may do, which may not be questioned in a proper forum, and on a proper application; but I am of the opinion that it is not competent for anyone … to disobey an injunction or any o