THE REPUBLIC VS REDCO LIMITED & THE REPUBLIC VS DAVID ASANTE APEATU (IGP)
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The facts reveal a breach of court orders leading to contempt proceedings and conviction against the IGP, challenged based on lack of a valid lawyer's license and non-compliance with procedural rules. The court set aside the contempt conviction due to violations of essential procedural rules, particularly the lack of leave to issue a writ of possession and failure to indorse necessary notices. The lawyer’s administrative delay in license renewal was considered non-prejudicial, emphasizing substantive compliance over bureaucratic formalities.
The core issues which I have been called upon to adjudicate on are: (a) Whether or not the conviction of Applicant in the contempt proceedings ought to be set aside on the ground that the lawyer who filed it had no license to practice as a lawyer at the time same was filed.
b) Whether or not the contempt proceedings was a nullity on the ground that the preconditions that were to be satisfied to clothe the Court with jurisdiction were not satisfied before the filing of the contempt proceedings.
A brief facts of the case is that Mrs. Isabella Odi Aggrey who was later substituted by Samuel Aggrey Jnr.
and Mrs. Augustina Gyekye Eck, by reason of death, instituted an action in the General Jurisdiction of the High Court in Suit No. CR/15/88 and obtained judgment against Redco Limited.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs/ Judgment/ Creditor/Applicants/ Respondents (herein after called the Respondents) filed a fi fa and subsequently, an order directed at the IGP as head of the Ghana Police Service to ensure the peaceful handing over of the two blocks of flats which was in the possession of the Ghana Police Service.
By the order made by the Court on of 23rd October, 2017, the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the Applicant herein, was ordered to ensure the peaceful surrender of the premises to the Respondents within twenty (21) days of the service of the order.
The failure of the IGP to comply with the said order caused the Respondents to file an application for contempt.
The Court convicted the IGP.
The present application has been filled to set aside the proceedings and the conviction on two (2) main grounds, that is; 1. That the lawyer who filed the process had no licence to practice at the time same was filed.
2. That the mandatory conditions under Order 43 of CI.
47 were not satisfied, thereby making the contempt proceedings null and void.
The case of the Applicant herein is that Order 43 of CI.
47 set the mandatory steps that ought to be complied with before there can be an allegation of contempt.
The Deputy Attorney-General, Honourable Godfred Dame, referred to Order 43 rule 3 and 7 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI.
47 and submitted that the Respondents failed to seek the leave of the Court to issue a Writ of Possession and further to that, in serving the Order made by the Court on the 23rd October, 2017 on the IGP (Applicant herein), the Respondent failed to indorse the penal notice on it in compliance with the rule 7 of Order 43