THE REPUBLIC VS JEFFLIN ACHEAMPONG EX PARTE YAA FREMA
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SENYO DZAMEFE. JA (PRESIDING)
- NOVISI ARYENE JA
- GIFTY AGYEI ADDO JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In litigation over title to sixteen used Toyota Yaris vehicles, Jefflin Acheampong sued Yaa Frema in the High Court at Tema and obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining Frema and those acting through her from interfering with his possession pending trial. Frema later sought to commit Acheampong for contempt, alleging he had sold ten vehicles during the proceedings. The High Court convicted Acheampong for contempt, granted him bail, and ordered payment of proceeds into court net of duties. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the injunction order did not bind Acheampong and could not support a willful-disobedience contempt, but found he disposed of vehicles while the case was sub judice, prejudicing the fair trial and thus committing intentional contempt. The Court set aside the GH¢520,000 payment order as arbitrary and unsupported by evidence, affirmed the conviction on different grounds, remitted for sentencing, and made no order as to costs.
GIFTY AGYEI ADDO JA
INTRODUCTION
In the case of the REPUBLIC VRS: BANK OF GHANA AND 5 OTHERS; EX PARTE: BENJAMIN DUFFOUR CIVIL/APPEAL NO. J4/34/2018, dated 6th June 2018, the Supreme Court, at page 8 of the report, provides two instances by which a person may be guilty of intentional contempt. The Court pronounced thus:
Intentional contempt may arise in two ways:
· Where a person willfully disobeys an order or judgment of a court, and
· where a party knowing that a case is sub-judice, engages in an act or omission which tends to prejudice or interfere with the fair trial of the case despite the absence of an order of the court.
Under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) two instances regulate contempt of court, per Order 43 and Order 50 respectively.
The Supreme Court speaking through Atuguba, JSC (as he then was) held in the case of REPUBLIC VRS: HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ACCRA; EX PARTE MILLICOM GHANA LIMITED AND OTHERS (SUPERPHONE COMPANY LIMITED INTERESTED PARTY) (2009) SCGLR 41, at pages 63 and 64 of the report thus:
In this case the application was for committal for contempt in execution of a judgment or order against a corporate body. In those circumstances, Order 50 is a general provision as opposed to Order 43. It is the latter that specifically relates to the enforcement of judgments or order to do or abstain from doing an act and therefore governs the application in this case upon the principle of construction that verba generalia specialibus non derogant. As the Applicant chose enforcement by means of committal, the relevant provision is, particularly, on the facts of his case, Order 43 rr 5 (1) (b) (cc) and 7 (1) and (2). It is plain that under these rules, without service on the relevant directors or officers, as in this case, committal cannot lie.
In our view, the procedure the Applicant chose to ground her case and the court’s reliance on one of the procedures underlies the present appeal before us.
For ease of reference, the designation of the parties in the court below, as Applicant and Respondent, shall be maintained.
THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
By his writ of summons accompanied by his statement of claim, the Plaintiff therein as Respondent herein, instituted an action in the High Court, Tema, on 9th July 2021, against the Defendant therein and Applicant herein for the following reliefs:
a. Declaration of title in all the sixteen 16 used Toyota Yaris Saloon Cars imported from Germany with their Cha