THE REPUBLIC v. MANAGING DIRECTOR ALLIANCE MOTORS LTD EXPARTE: JOANA EWURABENA OCRAN

MENSAH, JA On the 26th day of March 2018, the Financial & Economic Crime Division of the Accra High Court presided over by Georgina Mensah-Datsa J, (as she then was) dismissed the contempt application brought before it by the Applicant/Appellant herein, against the Respondent/Respondent herein.

It is against the ruling of the court that this instant appeal has been launched.The only ground of appeal is that the Ruling is against the weight of evidence.Ruling complained of, appears on pp 21-22 of the record of appeal.

I shall simply refer to the applicant/appellant as the appellant and the Respondent/Respondent as the contemnor/respondent.Facts:It is common ground that the Accra High Court differently constituted gave judgment in or about 2015 in favour of the Appellant in a case in which she had sued the PHC Motors as the defendants.

In an attempt to enforce execution of the judgment, the Appellant filed garnishee proceedings against the contemnor/respondent on the account that it was believed that the judgment/debtor, PHC Motors Ltd had some shares in Alliance Motors Ltd,the contemnor/ respondent.

It appears undisputed that Alliance Motors Ltd[contemnor/ respondent] was formed by Tata Motors and PHC Motors.

It is claimed that PHC Motors held 40% shares in contemnor/respondent,standing in the name of Paul Peprah, the Managing Director and the sole owner of PHC Motors.The High Court, Accra before whom the garnishee proceedings were held,made a finding of fact that PHC Motors held some shares in Alliance Motors,the contemnor/respondent.

Additionally, it found that Paul Peprah, the Managing Director of PHC Motors Ltd was the sole owner of the company that had 40% shares in Alliance Motors, contemnor/respondent.

Based on these findings, the court ordered that the 40% shares be sold in satisfaction of the judgment debt given in appellants favour that stood at Ghc60,000.

00.The appellant complains that the contemnor/respondent has refused to comply with the order of the court and that triggered the contempt proceedings resulting in the instant appeal before us.

This is because at the end of the contempt proceedings, the lower court held that the appellant was unable to establish a case to warrant the respondent being held in contempt.Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt case against the contemnor/respondent.

Being dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.Arguments of Counsel for the appellant:As stated supr