|
R U L I N G
This ruling is in respect of an
application by Hotel Shangri La
Limited for an order of this
court to commit the Respondents
namely, Honourable P.C.
Appiah-Ofori, Mr. Michael
Adjetey Sowah and Freeman George
Tetteh for contempt of court.
On 14th April, 2003
the Applicant herein and two
others namely Armen Kassardjan
and Gaas Fisheries Limited
issued a Writ in this court
against the Vessel MV “Diana
III”; The Owners & All Persons
interested in the vessel MV
“Diana III”; and Ashot
Melkoumyan in which they claim
the following reliefs:
(i)
A declaration that the 1st
Defendant, the Vessel MV “Diana
III” cannot sail from Ghana
until it has paid all its
indebtedness to the bank for
which the 1st
Plaintiff (Applicant herein) is
the guarantor; or in the
alternative.
(ii)
An order of this court for the
sale of the vessel;
(iii)
An order of account;
(iv)
Damages for breach of contract.
The case of the Applicant is
that the 1st
Defendant was arrested by order
of the High Court, Tema. The
parties to the suit agreed
subsequently that the 1st
Defendant be released to a four
man Committee to run it which
agreement was sanctioned by a
court order dated 17th
July, 2003. The Defendants
however applied to the court to
have the said order varied on 8th
November, 2004 and the 1st
Defendant was subsequently
released to the Defendants,
represented by Hon. P.C.
Appiah-Ofori (the 1st
Respondent), on terms. The
Applicant herein unsuccessfully
filed an application to set
aside the variation order.
According to the Applicant, the
1st Respondent into
whose hands the 1st
Defendant was released, operated
it for sometime and docked it at
the Port of Tema. The Ghana
Ports and Harbours Authority in
a purported performance of an
alleged statutory duty beached
the vessel and the same became a
total loss. Before the
beaching, the Ghana Ports and
Harbours Authority removed and
took custody of the purse seine
net and the skiff on board the 1st
Defendant. The Applicant filed
an application in court for an
order to take custody of the
skiff and the net pending the
final determination of the
suit. The Ghana Ports and
Harbours Authority then
submitted a letter written by
the 1st Respondent
dated 31st March,
2011 which authorized the Ghana
Ports and Harbours Authority to
release the skiff and net to the
2nd and 3rd
Respondents respectively. The
Applicant states the estimated
cost of the two items as
US$450,000.00.
From the above facts deposed to
by the Applicant in support of
its application, the Applicant
contends that by selling the
skiff and net to the 2nd
and 3rd Respondents,
the 1st Respondent is
contemptuous of the orders of
this court and the same intends
to put the administration of
justice into disrepute.
Similarly the 2nd and
3rd Respondents knew
or ought to have known that the
1st Respondent was
under arrest and could not have
bought the same or any part of
its accessories without the
order of the court. The 1st
Respondent has been the subject
of several court actions and
arrests and has been laid up at
the port of Tema for close to
six years and this is common
knowledge.
The Applicant thus prays for an
order to have the Respondents
purge themselves of their
contempt by retiring the net and
skiff to the court or be
committed to prison until they
have returned the net and skiff.
The 1st Respondent
filed a sixty (60) paragraphs
affidavit in response which even
includes a counterclaim as if he
was filing a statement of
defence to statement of claim.
Most of the depositions are
irrelevant. I would however
sieve through the said affidavit
and refer to the relevant
portions.
It is the case of the 1st
Respondent that he was not aware
of any suit involving the vessel
and the parties. He was not
also aware that the vessel was
arrested at the instance of the
Applicant as alleged by the
latter. What he knows is that
the vessel was arrested by the
sailors for non-payment of their
wages by the Applicant and the
four man committee amounting to
GH¢50,000,000.00 which he paid
to them at the Tema court when
he took over the management of
the vessel. The 1st
Respondent denies ever acting as
a Representative or agent of the
Defendants in the suit referred
to by the Applicant.
The 1st Respondent
further denies knowing the 2nd
and 3rd Respondents
and state that he gave
instructions to the General
Manager of the Ghana Ports and
Harbours Authority to dispose of
the skiff and net which the
latter did. He did not
personally get in touch with the
2nd and 3rd
Respondents over the sale.
The 2nd and 3rd
Respondents case is that they
bought the skiff and net from
the General Manager of the Ghana
Ports and Harbours Authority
without any knowledge of any
court action involving any
vessel.
The ingredients to prove in an
application for contempt of
court have been set out by the
Supreme Court in Republic v.
Sito I; Ex-Parte Fordjour
(2001-2002) SCGLR 322 as :
(i)
there must be a judgment or
order requiring the contemnor to
do or abstain from doing
something;
(ii)
it must be shown that the
contemnor knows what precisely
he is expecting to do or abstain
from doing; and;
(iii)
it must be shown that he failed
to comply with the terms of the
judgment or order and that
disobedience is willful.
It is not clear from the
depositions of the Applicant the
particular orders of the court
the Respondents have disobeyed.
The Applicant referred to three
orders of this court dated 17th
July, 2003; 8th
November, 2004 and 12th
September, 2005 (i.e. Exhibits
1(b); 2 and 3 respectively).
Upon examination of these orders
it is very clear that none of
the Respondents is a party
thereto. None of the
Respondents had been ordered to
refrain from dealing with the
vessel (the 1st
Defendant) nor its accessories
(the skiff and net).
Furthermore the Applicant is
unable to prove that the
Respondents were aware of the
dispute involving the vessel.
Contempt of court is a
quasi-criminal offence which
like other offences requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not enough to just allege
that the contemptnor has
knowledge without any proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The
Applicant herein only made wild
allegations of contemptuous
conduct against the Respondents
without making the slightest
attempt to prove same.
The instant application thus
lacks merit and same is hereby
dismissed. Each of the
Respondents is awarded cost of
GH¢1,000.00.
(SGD.) UUTER PAUL DERY
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
COUNSEL
1.
Mr. D.K. Ameley for Applicants
2.
Mr. Kwame Fosu Gyeabour for 1st
Respondent
3.
Mr. Akwasi Opoku for 2nd
and 3rd Respondents.
mc/@
|
