Contempt of court
–
Offence
–
Ingredients
–
Conduct intended to bring
administration of law into
disrepute
–
Respondent ejecting applicant
during pendency of application
for stay of execution
–
Conduct constituting contempt.
Contempt of court - Offence
-
Liability
–
1st respondent acting on legal
advice
of 2nd respondent
–
1st respondent excused
–
No extenuating circumstances for
2nd respondent.
While an application was pending
in the Supreme Court for stay of
execution of a judgment for the
recovery of premises, the 2nd
respondent, acting as the
solicitor for the 1st
respondent, wrote the Deputy
Sheriff for the execution to
proceed. With the aid of
bailiffs, the respondents caused
the applicant to be ejected from
the premises but re-instated him
before the motion for stay of
execution came up for hearing by
the Supreme Court. The court
granted the application and
stayed execution upon terms. The
applicant then applied for the
attachment or committal of the
respondents for contempt. The
2nd respondent apologised.
Held:
while the 1st respondent might
be excused as the recipient of
wrong legal advice, there were
no extenuating circumstances for
the conduct of the 2nd
respondent. In all the
circumstances, no useful purpose
would be served to exercise the
coercive powers of the court
against the respondents. The
court would accept the apology
rendered by the 2nd respondent
and discharge both respondents
but the 2nd respondent would pay
costs to the applicant.
APPLICATION to the Supreme Court
for an order for committal or
attachment.
Sammy Addo
for the applicant.
Ekow Miaful Amponsa-Dadzie,
2nd respondent in person.
AMUA-SEKYI JSC.
This in an application for an
order of attachment or committal
to be issued against the
respondents for contempt. The
matter alleged against them is
that while an application was
pending in this court for stay
of execution of a judgment for
the recovery of premises, the
2nd respondent, as the solicitor
for the 1st respondent, wrote a
letter to the Deputy Sheriff of
the High Court, Accra, to
express the opinion that the
execution could proceed.
Thereafter, with the aid of
bailiffs of the High Court, the
respondents had the applicant
ejected from the premises. It
seems that they realised their
error shortly thereafter and
reinstated him before the motion
for stay of execution came up
for hearing by this court. As
it happened, this court granted
a stay of execution on terms.
The answer of the respondents to
the present application is the
unedifying one that as the
applicant brought their illegal
act to the notice of the court
at the time the motion for stay
of execution was heard, the
applicant is estopped from
raising the mater again. We are
of the opinion that since the
illegal act was not the subject
matter of any enquiry before
this court at the time the
motion for stay of execution was
heard, the applicant is at
liberty to raise it again and
ask the court to deal with the
respondents. We think that while
the 1st respondent may be
excused as the recipient of
wrong legal advice, there are no
extenuating circumstances to
excuse the conduct of the 2nd
respondent who is a lawyer of
several years’ standing at the
Bar. We have however, taken note
of the apology he belatedly
rendered in Court. We trust that
in future he will not permit his
zeal to further the interests of
his clients to becloud his
judgment.
In all the circumstances, we do
not think it will serve any
useful purpose to exercise the
coercive powers of the court
against the respondents. We
accept the apology rendered by
the 2nd respondent and discharge
both him and 1st respondent. The
2nd respondent will, however,
pay ¢200,000 costs to the
applicant.
BAMFORD-ADDO JSC.
I agree.
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC.
I agree.
AMPIAH JSC.
I agree.
ADJABENG JSC.
I also agree.
Application granted.
S Kwami Tetteh, Legal
Practitioner |
