THE REPUBLIC VS NANA OSEI AGYEMANG PREMPEH DWAMENA II EX PARTE: ABUSUAPANIN KWABENA FRIMPONG
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE GIFTY DEKYEM (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a motion for contempt against the Respondent for allegedly violating an injunction request. The court dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent was involved in the burial of the deceased. The court reiterated that any action likely to interfere with pending litigation could constitute contempt, but the standard of proof for such a claim is beyond a reasonable doubt.
The instant is in respect of motion on notice for contempt.
Per the affidavit in support of the application, the Applicant filed motion on notice for an injunction to restrain the interment of the deceased defendant Opanin Amoako in Suit No. A1/06/14 titled ABUSUAPANIN KWABENA FRIMPONG v NANA OSEI AGYEMANG PREMPEH DWAMENA II (Substituted for Opanin Kofi Amoako (Deceased)). By the affidavit in support, the Applicant deposed that whilst the injunction application was pending, the Respondent having been served with the injunction application on 19th September, 2022, on 24th September, 2022 nevertheless went ahead to do what the injunction application was seeking and preventing him to do.
It is the case of the Applicant that, the Respondent’s conduct thus amounts to contempt of court as his conduct was calculated to bring the administration of the law into disrepute.
Applicant attached to the motion paper the injunction application and proof of service of the same as exhibits ‘AKF 1’ and‘AKF 2’ respectively.
The Respondent concedes that he was served the motion for an injunction but the same was not directed at him.
He contended that he was not a member of the Funeral Committee formed by the Agona Royal Family headed by Nana Afia Asiedua to plan the burial and funeral of the deceased Opanin Kofi Amoako.
The Respondent deposed that the funeral committee included Applicant’s nephews and he was very much aware of the committee members and their activities.
It is the Respondent’s case that he had nothing to do with the programme and burial of the deceased.
The instant case does not fall on all fours with what constitutes contempt as enunciated in the case of the Republic v Sito Ex Parte: Fordjour [2001-2002] SCGLR 322. This case requires that there should be an order or judgment of the court in which the contemnor knows precisely what he or she is expected to do or abstain from doing and that he or she willfully disobeyed the terms of the order or judgment.
In the present case, the injunction application had not been heard and determined, therefore it remained pending at the date of the conduct complained of by the Applicant.
The case of Republic v Moffat; Ex Parte Allotey [1971] 2 GLR 391 held that: It is well established that any conduct which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with any pending litigation is a contempt of court.
So that once the respondents had become aware of the pendency of