|
Contempt of Court – Pending
Preceding – Conduct intended to
bring administration of justice
into disrepute – Respondent
engaging in act sought to be
restrained in pending Preceding
– conduct constituting
contempt of court.
The respondent sued the
applicants in the Ga Traditional
Council to restrain the
installation of the 2nd
applicant as a chief and applied
for oil interlocutory injunction
to restrain the installation
pending the determination
of the suit' Despite
service of the application on
them, the applicants proceeded
with the installation. The
traditional council dismissed
the application because the
installation had already taken
place. The respondent then
appealed successfully to the
Greater Accra Region I-louse of
Chiefs. The applicants also
appealed but unsuccessfully to
the National House of Chiefs and
then applied for leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court, which the
House declined. The applicants
then repeated their application
fur leave in the Supreme Court.
Held: the applicants, having
been served with the application
deliberately stole the match by
dicing the very act that the
motion .sought to restrain.
While the notion was pending, it
was disrespectful to the Ga
Traditional Council for the
first applicant to install
the second applicant. Once
the applicants had become aware
of the pendency of tile motion,
any conduct on their part that
was likely to
prejudice a fair hearing of the
notion was tantamount It,
contempt. The applicants should
not be allowed to get
away with such behavior, which
must be deprecated
plainly by court. The National
House of Chiefs rightly endorsed
the decision of the Greater
Accra House of Chiefs that the
second applicant should be
restrained, No useful
purpose would therefore be
served by granting the
applicants leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court and the
application would be dismissed
with costs.
APPLICATION for leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court.
Nil Aponsah for the applicants.
Richard Asamoah for
Mmieh for the
respondent.
ABBAN JSC. The applicants were
defendants in a suit before the
Ga Traditional Council and the
respondent was the plaintiff in
the said suit. In her writ the
respondent sought the following
reliefs. namely, (a) a
declaration that the first
applicant had no right to
nominate or elect and install
the second applicant as the
Manse of Dome (b)a
declaration that the second
applicant was not the right
Page 251
persons to be made chief of Dome
and (c) an injunction
restraining the second
applicant from holding himself
out as a chief. The writ of
sermons was served on the
applicants. Since tile
respondent was seeking an order
(or an injunction against the
applicants. she filed a motion
on the application for an
interim injunction to restrain
the first applicant from
electing and enstooling the
second applicant as a chief,
pending the hearing and the
final determination of the
substantive suit. This motion
was served on the applicants,
according to the records, (i 7
July 1988. But on 9 July 1988,
that is, two days after they had
been served with the motion, and
the motion was still pending to
be heard, the applicants went
ahead and did the
installation against which the
motion had been filed. This fact
was admitted by the applicants
in an affidavit which they filed
in opposition to the motion. In
paragraph 4 of that affidavit
the applicants deposed as
follows:
"4 That the installation of the
2nd defendant (appellant) which
the plaintiff-respondent seeks
to restrain has already taken
place i Saturday, 9 July 1988 as
evidenced by police permit
granted by letter of8luly 1988."
When eventually the Ga
Traditional Council heard the
motion, it dismissed it, mainly
on the grounds that the
installation had already taken
place. The council expressed
itself as follows:
"Although the (applicants
herein) were duly served with
the motion on notice by
the[respondent) on 7 July 1988,
they went oil to perform the
ceremony because they felt they
had ten days within which to
file their affidavit in
opposition as stipulated
a
The applicants applied to the
National House of Chiefs for
leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court, But that application was
dismissed on 10 November 1993.
The applicant have now repeated
their application for leave
before this, court. Was tile
National house of Chiefs wrong
in refusing leave ? Looking at
the history of the case of as
set out above there is iii doubt
that the applicants.
having been served with the
motion for the interim
injunction to restrain them
from carrying out any kind of
installation until the
installation until the out came
of the suit was known
deliberately stole the match
over the respondent by doing the
very thing for which by which
the motion has been brought ,
while the motion for interim
injunction was pending it was
not right for the first
applicant to install the second
appellant as chief of Dome. This
conduct was disrespectful to the
Ga Traditional Council. Once
the applicants had become aware
of the pendency of the said
motion any conduct that was
likely to prejudice a fair
hearing of that motion was
tantamount to contempt.
Whether the first applicant had
a right to nominate the second
applicant to be enstooled as a
chief and whether the second
applicant is the right person to
be made a chief of Dome, were
all matters to be gone into by
the Ga Traditional Council, and
it was to maintain the status
quo in the meantime, until those
issues had been resolved, that
the respondent filed the said
motion. The applicants should
have given respect to the Ga
Traditional Council and should
have given opportunity to the
latter to make Mime
pronouncement on the motion.
Instead, the applicants rushed
through some sort of
installation ceremony, purposely
to frustrate or to forestall any
order being made against them.
They should not be allowed to
get away with such behaviour,
which must be deprecated in
no uncertain terms by this
court. This court will be
lending its support to the
contemptuous behaviour of the
applicants, if it were to permit
the second applicant to
masquerade as a chief. The
second applicant should not be
allowed to take advantage of his
own wrongdoing. The National
House of Chiefs rightly endorsed
the decision of file Greater
Accra House of Chiefs that the
second applicant should be
restrained from posing as Mantse
of Dome and from "purporting to
act as such till the final
determination of this case." In
our view, the decision was not
only well founded but also fair.
Thus, no useful purpose will be
served by granting the
applicants leave to appeal to
this court. We accordingly
dismiss the application with
costs.
ADADE JSC. I agree.
AMUA-SEKYI JSC. I agree.
WIREDU JSC. I agree.
BAMFORD-ADDO JSC. I also agree.
Application dissmissed
S Kwami Tetteh, Legal
practitioner
|
