The Republic Vrs Wovenu & 3 Others [2023] GHAHC 177 (6 June 2023)

06:06:2023. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT SOGAKOPE ON 6TH JUNE, 2023 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE DOREEN G. BOAKYE – AGYEI MRS. ESQ., JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT. SUIT NO. E13/24/2022 THE REPUBLIC -VRS- 1. REV. NYEENYAMI E. WOVENU -- RESPONDENTS 2. RAYMOND WOVENU 3. NEDO WOVENU 4. REV. SAMUEL ADJEI EX-PARTE: CHARLES AGBOLOSOO --- APPLICANT PARTIES: - APPLICANT PRESENT 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS PRESENT. COUNSEL: - MR. MARK ADZANU ESQ., HOLDING BRIEF OF MR. TASSER TAPHA TASSER ESQ., FOR APPLICANT PRESENT. MR. SENANU ASHIAGBOR ESQ., HOLDING BRIEF FOR MR. ELLIS QUARSHIGAH ESQ., FOR RESPONDENTS PRESENT. JUDGMENT FACTS: The above Respondents were cited for contempt pursuant to a contempt application. The Plaintiffs/Applicants herein have sued the Defendants jointly and severally for the following reliefs: i. A declaration by the Honourable Court that following resolution of the first General Conference (Governing Body) of the Apostle's Revelation Society for the year 2020 dated 26th September 2020 and held at the International Headquarters of the Church at New Tadzewu in the Volta Region of the Republic of Ghana, the 1st Defendant herein is no longer the leader of the Apostles Revelation Society Church and the Chairman of the General Conference of the Apostles Revelation Society. ii. An order of the Court directed at the 1st Defendant to vacate the residence of the leader of the Church located within the premises of the Church. iii. An order of perpetual injunction directed at the 1st Defendant, his servants, agents, privies, assigns, successors in title, personal representatives or any person claiming through him from holding himself out as the Leader of the Church howsoever or whatsoever or in any manner interfering with or in the management and administration of the Church or holding himself out as the Chairman of the General Conference of the Apostles Revelation Society. iv. Cost of this litigation. Pending the determination of the suit, the Applicants applied to the Court for an Order of interlocutory injunction which the Honourable Court granted on the 9th February 2021 and injuncted the 1st Defendant in the following terms: "it is hereby ordered that the Defendants herein and anybody claiming through them are hereby restrained from having anything to do with the finances of the Church. It is further ordered that the Registrar, the Applicants together with the Financial Director and Accountant of the Church as well as the Executive Committee of the Church are to issue the pocket calendar for 2021. They are to assume the financial administration of the Church pending the final determination of the case." It is the case of the Applicants that the Order together with a Penal Notice was served on the 1st Respondent and he knew exactly what he was restrained from doing. That the 1st Respondent demonstrating further awareness of the pendency of the Order against him filed a Notice of Appeal against same on the 3rd day of March 2021 and followed it up with Applications for Stay of Execution of the Order on the 26th of February 2021 and 14th of July 2021 which applications were refused. Applicants contend that the 2nd to 4th Respondents are assigns, agents and privies of the 1st Defendant/Respondent who are all equally aware of the Restraining Order against the 1st Respondent and his assigns, privies and agents. It is also the case of the Applicants that pursuant to the Orders of the Court, the Applicants applied for an Order of Writ of Possession to take possession of the Cash Office which application was granted and the Applicants placed in possession of the Cash Office by the Registrar of the Honourable Court. That notwithstanding these express Orders against the Respondents, they deliberately set out to disobey the Orders of the Court in an effort to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and erode the authority and mandate of the Court. Applicants list some instances of disobedience by the Respondents as follows: The Respondents drove the Applicants from the Cash Office and changed the locks to same and are operating same daily till date. The Respondents were in charge of all the finances of the Church contrary to the orders of the Court and collected all the contributions and donations during the 82nd Anniversary of the Church and refused to account for same. The 1st Respondent also printed the pocket calendar contrary to the orders of the court. This case having witnessed some appreciable level of drama and with the Respondents in open court disputing the allegations of the Applicants, the Honourable Court ordered a visit to the premises with officers of the Court. The officers of the Court visited the locus on the 22nd December 2022 and the Locus Report was exhibited to a supplementary affidavit in support of the application filed on the 16th of January 2023 as Exhibit Supplementary A. Applicants state that without any remorse, the Respondents subjected the Applicants and the Court officials to severe beatings. They again state that per page 2 of Exhibit Supplementary A, it is clear that the Respondents were still in charge of the offices including the Cash Office despite their claims in Court that they have vacated the office and that the keys they presented to the Court claiming to be the key to the Cash Office was a blatant falsehood they peddled in open court which is further contempt of the Court. That portion of the report states that "We later found that all those offices which keys were brought to the Court were in operation". On the allegation against the Respondents that they deliberately brought wrong keys to the Court, the Court ordered for a second locus visit since both parties had their own entrenched versions of who was at fault regarding the first locus visit. According to Respondents per their Counsel, the Applicant and the Court officers refused to honour the exact date ordered for the locus visit by going on a date when all the Respondents were not present. The Applicant returned with a story that the Applicant and his team were assaulted and also prevented from having access to the church locus. The Respondents filed a joint and later their individual affidavits in opposition to the Application on the 30th day of November 2022. They did not deny the specific acts attributed to them but their defence contained in their affidavits in opposition is captured at paragraphs 4 to 8 same where they each claim that the injunction application the order of which forms the basis of the contempt application was not served on the 1st Defendant or on the other Respondents, not party to the substantive suit. Per the records, a. The 1st Defendant was served with the Application for Interlocutory injunction through his Lawyers on the 12th October 2020 b. The 1st Defendant personally deposed to an affidavit in opposition to the Application for injunction on the 18th of November 2020; c. The 1st Defendant's Lawyer filed legal arguments in opposition to the application for injunction on the 27th of January 2021 d. The Ruling of the Court on the on the 9th of February 2021 adequately made references to the affidavit of the 1st Defendant as well as the legal arguments of his Lawyer. e. At paragraph 4 of the affidavit in opposition to the Application for interlocutory injunction filed on the 18th November 2020, the 1st Defendant under oath deposed as follows: "I have been served with a motion for interlocutory injunction but I am vehemently opposed to same." The Search Result Exhibit Inj 1, referred to the application for Writ of Possession which was made Ex parte in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and did not require same to be served on the Defendants. According to Counsel for Respondents, (who was not the initial Counsel) the 1st Respondent has severally denied with search results that notice of the injunction was ever served on him or brought to his attention and has consistently proven same to the Court. That all attempts by the Applicant to prove that the 1st Respondent was notified with the Injunction Orders were denied through the legal representation of the 1st Respondent. Counsel cites the case of REPUBLIC VRS BEKOE AND OTHERS; EX PARTE ADJEI (1982 – 83) GLR 91 and concludes that same exonerates the 1st Respondent in this regard. Even though the Respondents did not deny under oath the acts attributed to them, choosing to focus on non-service, their Lawyer focused on what he termed as contradictions and fraudulent misrepresentations by the Applicant. His submission was that the Applicant in one breath claims that the Respondents have locked up every entrance to the church premises till today preventing members of the church from having access to the church and the same Applicant is saying that the 1st Respondent went ahead and celebrated the 83rd anniversary of the church. If the entire entrance to the church premises are all locked up till date, then where was the 83rd Anniversary of the church celebrated amidst allegedly publishing of the pocket calendars of the church and wall calendars. Counsel supplies the answer by stating that Applicant knows or ought to have known that the 83rd Anniversary was celebrated in December 2022, where the congregation all over the world converged at the Headquarters of the church in Tadzewu to celebrate the 83rd Anniversary without being locked out by the 1st Respondent nor by the 2nd to 4th Respondents on the instructions of the 1st Respondent as alleged by the Applicant. Counsel questions why the Applicant concludes per Exhibit C that once pocket calendars, wall calendars and other souvenirs are published same were published at the instance of the 1st Respondent when there is no evidence as to his involvement in publishing same. That the Applicant very much knew those in charge of same and it was therefore the responsibility of the Applicant to have gone beyond the mere allegation knowing the standard required to prove a contempt allegation. Counsel then cited the case of Republic vrs. Opanin Kwame Boamah & 3 others, Ex Parte Kwaku Amposah where it was opined that .........it is trite that in the face of a denial, the applicant must go beyond a mere allegation to prove with evidence to satisfy the Court. In defence of his Clients who did not deny on oath matters in the affidavit in support, Counsel for Respondents submits that all the exhibits that the Court was furnished with could not connect any of the Respondents, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th to the alleged crime. That a picture of a man wearing a torn shirt and standing in front of a house which was not any of the structures on the ARS church premises were exhibited because even though their building was blue and white, the blue colour on the ARS building was lower than that in the picture. Lawyer Ellis Quashigah mentioned in the Court Registrar's Report as being at the Anniversary and refusing to call the Respondents to Order was never there according to Respondents, the reason why Applicants could not capture him in pictures or video to proof the veracity of the truth in their allegation. On the pen drive attached to the Report as evidence of what the Respondents actually did on the said date, Respondents contend that there was nothing covered on that pen drive that connects Respondents to said acts. Respondents per their submissions stated that all the instances of disobedience raised by the Applicants against them are unfounded, bereft of substance and borne out of hatred, envy, greed resulting from the ex-communication of the Applicants from the church instigated by the 1st Respondent and the General Conference of the A R S Church on charges of Fraud, Malfeasance and Insubordination. Counsel submits that the 2nd to 4th Respondents are being cited for contempt because they are deemed to be the assigns and privies of the 1st Respondent and have allegedly done what they did on the instructions of the 1st Respondent. That once the 1st Respondent denies all the allegations of contempt same should have a ripple effect on the privies and assigns who have equally in their respective affidavits in opposition also denied allegation of all the contemptuous acts allegedly committed by them. Respondents contend that it has been the desire of the Applicants that the Respondents who consist of the Leader of the Apostles Revelation Society Church, Pastors and members be committed to prison just to settle the Applicant's personal score with the 1st Respondent. It is noted that there were two distinct contempt applications pending at the same time and Counsel for Respondents made the same submissions for both cases. THE LAW The Supreme Court in the case of REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, ACCRA, EX PARTE LARYEA MENSAH (1998-99) SCGLR 360 @ 368 defined contempt of court as follows: "By definition, a person commits contempt of court and may be committed to prison for willfully disobeying an order of court requiring him to do any act other than the payment of money or abstain from doing some act; and the order sought to be enforced should be unambiguous and must be clearly understood by the parties concerned". See also IN RE EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS (NO 2); REPUBLIC VRS NUMAPAU, THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX PARTE AMEYAW II [1998-98] SCGLR 639. To successfully convict for contempt, there must be an order of court which the Respondent has willfully disobeyed. In the case of REPUBLIC VRS SITO I, EX PARTE FORDJOUR [2001-2002] SCGLR 322, the Supreme Court listed the four broad requisites to be satisfied for a successful application for contempt as follows: i. ii. iii. iv. There must be a judgment or order requiring the contemnor to do or abstain from doing something; It must be shown that the contemnor knows what precisely he is expected to do or abstain from doing: It must be shown that he failed to comply with the order; And that the disobedience must be willful The aim and purpose of the law of contempt is to protect the integrity of the court, justice system and the right of an individual litigant to have justice effectively administered. To this end, punishment is imposed on persons found by words or acts, to have impeded or interfered with the administration of justice, or to have created a substantial risk of the course of justice being seriously prejudiced or interfered with or to have otherwise scandalized the court. See DR. PATRICIO AND EILEEN YOURI VRS MRS JUSTINA ABOAGYE [2013] 67 GMJ 49 CA It is a legitimate defence to a charge of contempt that the person charged had no notice of the order. A person could not be guilty of an order of the court of which he had no notice of. In the case of the DEEPSEA DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMEN AND OTHERS VRS TRADES UNION CONGRESS OF GHANA AND OTHERS (1982 - 83) GLR 941, it was held that the Court would only punish as contempt a breach of injunction if it was satisfied that the terms of the injunction were clear and unambiguous that the Respondents had proper notice of the terms and that breach of the injunction had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where the disobedience was unintentional or accidental, the Court would not issue a Writ for attachment. From the facts and records, it is clear that: There is an order of the Court restraining the Respondents from having anything to do with the finances of the church and the Respondents are aware of the said order as the Order and a penal notice were served on the 1st Respondent who wields a lot of power with the ARS church; The court pursuant to a writ of possession placed the Applicants into possession of the Cash Office; The above order notwithstanding: i. ii. iii. iv. v. The Respondents forcefully removed the Applicants from the Cash Office and took possession of same contrary to the orders of the Court; The Respondents collected all the money accruing to the Church at the 82nd Anniversary of the church and appropriated same contrary to the orders of the Court; That the Respondents deceived the Court and gave wrong keys to the Cash Office to the Court claiming that those were the keys to the Cash Office: That upon a locus visit on the 22nd December 2022, the Respondents were fully in charge of the Cash Office; That the Respondents also printed the Pocket Calendar for the 2022 year contrary to the orders of the Court. The aforementioned disobedience by the Respondents, especially the 1st Respondent are willful and deliberate. Even when they were given the opportunity to purge themselves of the contumacious act they elected to further act in contempt of the Court by deceiving the Court with wrong keys to the Cash Office. It is clear that the defence of the Respondents of non-service of the Application for Interlocutory injunction fails. In the absence of that defence the Respondents have no other defence to the charges of contempt leveled against them. They would therefore be convicted accordingly 1st Respondent is sentenced to a fine of GHC1500 in Default 10 days in prison custody. The other Respondents are however each sentenced to a fine of GHc500 in default 7 days in Prison custody. (SGD.) H/L JUSTICE DOREEN G. BOAKYE-AGYEI MRS. ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT CASES CITED REPUBLIC VRS BEKOE AND OTHERS; EX PARTE ADJEI (1982 – 83) GLR 91 REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, ACCRA, EX PARTE LARYEA MENSAH (1998-99) SCGLR 360 @ 368 IN RE EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS (NO 2); REPUBLIC VRS NUMAPAU, THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX PARTE AMEYAW II [1998- 98] SCGLR 639. REPUBLIC VRS SITO I, EX PARTE FORDJOUR [2001-2002] SCGLR 322 DR. PATRICIO AND EILEEN YOURI VRS MRS JUSTINA ABOAGYE [2013] 67 GMJ 49 CA DEEPSEA DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMEN AND OTHERS VRS TRADES UNION CONGRESS OF GHANA AND OTHERS (1982 - 83) GLR 941 11