REPUBLIC VS BOAHEN & 4 OTHERS (E9/54/22) [2023] GHAHC 431 (31 October 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, WESTERN REGION HELD IN SEKONDI ON TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. CORAM: G. K GYAN-KONTOH ‘J’ JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT BETWEEN: SUIT NO. E9/54/22 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE REPUBLIC VS 1. EBENEZER K. BOAHEN 2. AUGUSTUS AGYEMAN ACHINA 3. JOHN BROWN 4. SAMUEL AWUAH 5. KWAME NKRUMAH EX-PARTE: 1. ROSINA ARYEE 2. KWAME BEDU-ANDOR ::: RESPONDENTS ::: APPLICANTS JUDGMENT: BY AN application dated 12/09/2022, the Applicants herein prayed for an order to cite and commit the Respondents herein to prison for contempt of court. BACKGROUND: Both the Applicants and the Respondents belong to one big church called THE CHRISTIAN DIVINE CHURCH (hereafter called the church). From the records, virtually all the parties are either holding positions in the church or have once held or played some roles in the activities of the church. From the records, there have been litigations involving the church one way or the other and some executive, officers and members of the church in the affairs, running and operations of the church, in various courts in the country. From the records, there are cases involving the church in courts in Accra, Tarkwa and Sekondi. From the application before this court, this contempt is premised on: (a) Suit No. E12/10/2022 entitled Emmanuel Arthur v. Christian Divine Church. (b) Suit No. E12/3/2022 entitled Ekow Dadzie v. Andrews Antwi Obadiah Sampson Awotwe & Christian Divine Church. (Per Exhibit F & F1). (c) Suit No. GI/0428/2022 entitled Rosina Aryee & anor v. Ebenezer Boahen & ors. (Per Exhibit H & H1). (d) David Agyekum v. Ebenezer Boahen & ors. (Per Exhibit G). From the records, there is an order of interlocutory injunction in Suit No. E12/3/22 restraining the affected persons and the church from activities that impugn on the administration of the church especially the holding of any elections of one form or another until the final determination of the suit. From the records, there is yet another injunction application pending before the court in suit No. GI/0428/2022 also involving some of the officers in the church including the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein. Indeed, from the records, the order for interlocutory injunction in Sit No. E12/3/2022 involved only the church as a party/3rd Respondent in the said suit but the order indeed affected the agents of the 3rd Defendant church as well. Therefore, from the records, apart from the 1st and 2nd Respondents who were directly involved as parties in Suit No. GI/0428/2022 from which the injunction application is still pending, all the other parties have been brought and woven into this application as agents of the church who have, according to the Applicants flout the courts’ orders and/or are acting in spite; of pending injunction applications before the courts. APPLICANT’S CASE: Supporting their case with a 27 paragraph affidavit and several annexures as listed here below, the Applicants stated their capacities in the application as the Executive Director and Trustee of the church and also former General Secretary of the church respectively. The Applicants contended that in suit No. E12/10/2022, the church was sued in respect of the following reliefs: (a) A Declaration that the Defendant church constitution must be the governing principal enactment of the said named Defendant until same is repealed. (b) A Declaration that all except the chairman and/or chairmanship position, all other persons, groups, associations, bodies, institutions, committees, organisations, wings, appointments and the likes by the Defendant’s constitution which same has over stayed their term of office has expired by the relevant provisions of the said constitution has expired. (c) An order compelling Defendant church to organise and form, elect, appoint, etc a new all other persons, groups, association, bodies, institutions, committees, organisation, wings, appointments and the likes cited in paragraph (2) supra in place of the aforementioned expiration. (d) An order compelling the current chairman of the Defendant’s church to subject himself to within a reasonable time ensure that paragraphs (2) and (3) supra are duly complied with. (e) An order compelling Defendant’s church to within a reasonable time organise and elect a new chairman as soon as paragraphs (2) and (3) supra are duly complied with. The Applicants also contended that in Suit No. E12/3/2022, there was an order for interlocutory injunction by which the church and its agents including the 1st and 2nd Respondents were restrained from activities that impugn on the administration of the church especially the holding of any election of one form or another until the final determination of the suit; and which the Respondents have flouted. The Applicants again contend in Suit No. GI/0428/2022 that the 1st Applicant therein sued the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents here (the church as 3rd Defendant) for the following: (a) A Declaration that the tenure of office of the 1st and 2nd Defendants as chairman and deputy chairman respectively, expired on 28th January, 2022. (b) An order directed at 1st and 2nd Defendants to cease carrying themselves and performing any function as chairman and deputy chairman respectively effective 20th January, 2022. (c) An order directed at 1st and 2nd Defendants to hand over all church properties in their custody to the church and for 1st Defendant to vacate the church property where he resides. (d) An order directed at the 4th and 5th Defendant not to accord the 1st and 2nd Defendants as signatories to the church Bank Accounts and not to release church funds with them to 1st and 2nd Defendants, their assigns, representatives or agents from 20th January, 2022; and According to the Applicants, there is an injunction application now pending in Suit No. GI/0428/22 and the parties have been duly served. But in spite of the pending application, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents (per Exhibit C2), disregarded same and went ahead to make appointments including the appointment of Counsel in disregard of the pending case and in contravention with the constitution of the church for which reason, the 2nd Applicant lodged a complaint with the General Legal Counsel and now pending. The Applicants contend that in spite of the above suits, Counsel for the church proceeded to appoint the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents as a three man committee to oversee the church pending the successful conduct of elections. (See Exhibit E). Further, the Respondents, according to the Applicants and the exclusion of the Trustees of the church, proceeded to invite the church body to discuss matters of elections which was a subject of dispute in the suits listed in this case, even though there was a suit on the subject and an application for injunction pending in suit No. E12/10/2022 pending in court. The Applicants contended that the Respondents committed contempt by preventing a court bailiff from serving the Respondents of court process and thus proceeded to hold meetings on church elections on 27/8/2022, unilaterally dissolving the Trusteeship of the church, the executive council, the pastoral council all in contravention of their constitution and in the face of pending injunction application. Further, the Applicants contend that the Respondents directed all pastors to send their tithes and church funds to the bank in contra to the application for injunction pending; and further proceeded to appoint an Acting General Secretary of the church even though the position of the General Secretary is a subject of dispute pending in court for which the 4th Respondent, in his said capacity as the General Secretary directed all funds to be rendered to him in disregard to the court cases. The Applicants contend that all the above in spite of the court cases and the injunction have been deliberately effected to throw the administration of the court in ridicule for which the Respondents whose actions have impaired the dignity and authority of the courts ought to be punished so as to stop them from their behaviour and actions by an order of this court committing their bodies attached for committal to prison for contempt. Exhibits: 1. Exhibit A1 – Writ of summons and statement of claim. 2. Exhibit A2 – statement of Defence 3. Exhibit B – Injunction order 4. Exhibit C2 - ……… 5. Exhibit ……….. 6. Exhibit ……….. 7. Exhibit ……….. 8. Exhibit ……….. 9. Exhibit ……….. 10. Exhibit ………. 11. Exhibit ……….. RESPONDENTS’ CASE: I must note that each of the Respondents filed affidavit in opposition but the summary of it all is a complete denial of the averments by the Applicants save the 1st Respondent who provided as much as 27 paragraphed affidavit in opposition with several annexures to support his case. Those exhibits included the following: i. Exhibit A – Suit No. E12/103/19 dated 2/9/2019 being ii. Exhibit A1 – Statement of claim iii. Exhibit B – Ruling dated 27/3/2020 iv. Exhibit C – Writ of summons of 15/10/2020 v. Exhibit C1 – Statement of claim of 15/10/2020 vi. Exhibit C2 – Ruling dated 9/6/2021 vii. Exhibit D – Application for certiorari of J5/57/2021 dated 16/6/2021 viii. Exhibit D1 – Affidavit dated 16/6/2021 ix. Exhibit E – Ruling of Supreme Court dated 6/7/2021 x. Exhibit F – Writ of E12/3/2021 xi. Exhibit F1 – Order of Interlocutory injunction dated 22/11/2021 xii. Exhibit G – Writ (GJ 01/4/2022) xiii. Exhibit G1 – Order per appointment of 3-member committee to oversee church dated 6/4/2022 xiv. Exhibit H – Writ – GJ/0428/2022 xv. Exhibit H1 – Amended statement of claim xvi. Exhibit J xvii. Exhibit J1 xviii. Exhibit K – – – K-archy & company limited of 11/1/2021 K-archy & company limited of 11/1/2021 Order for appointment of 3-member committee in suit no. E12/10/2022 xix. Exhibit L – Motion for contempt in E9/8/2022 (Tarkwa) xx. Exhibit M – Motion for contempt suit no. CR/0370/21 (Accra) xxi. Exhibit M1 – Affidavit in opposition by 1st Respondent (TRS 163/22) xxii. Exhibit N – Letter of 7/9/2020 on General Election. xxiii. Exhibit O – K-achy & company dated 6/12/2021 The Respondents contended that the application has been brought in bad faith averring that the 1st Respondent is neither a Trustee nor an Executive Director of the church. The 1st Respondent contended that various actions had been mounted against him and dismissed by the court including Suit No. E12/103/2019 and Suit No. E12/3/2021 and even the later one which was on certiorari at the Supreme Court was equally dismissed, according to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent averred that whilst the Tarkwa suit was pending an injunction was placed on them and subsequently to fill a lacuna in the administration of the church’s activities, a committee was formed with the order of the High Court at Tarkwa as an interim measure for the church (as per Exhibit “K” order). The 1st Respondent contended that in obeying the order as per Exhibit ‘K’, the 1st and the 2nd Respondents cited the 1st Applicant and 6 others for contempt in the High Court Tarkwa which is pending (as per Exhibit “L”). The 1st Respondent contends that whilst the contempt application was pending at High Court, Tarkwa, against the 1st Applicant and 6 others, the 1st Applicant and Isaac Annan also mounted a contempt proceeding against the 1st Respondent and other which is now pending and awaiting ruling (as per Exhibit M & M1). The 1st Respondent avers that pursuant to the order of the High Court in appointing a three- member-committee for the church as an interim measure, he, in that capacity wrote to all churches in an effort to hold elections as per the constitution of the church (see Exhibit “N”). The 1st Respondent avers that it is rather the 1st Applicant and her like-minded persons who are disturbing the smooth functioning of the church. SUBMISSION OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS (VIVA VOCE): Counsel submits that whilst there is an application for interlocutory injunction pending, nothing ought to be done in the circumstances. Counsel on this refers the court to the case of R v. Bank of Ghana & 5 ors; Exp. P. Benjamin Duffour [2010] DLSC 2503. Referring also to the case of R v. Moffat, Exp. Allottey [1971] 2 GLR 391. Counsel argues that the Respondents, on the above authority, were on notice of the injunction application pending against them in the Rosina Aryee suit in High Court, Accra. Counsel refers to R v Popular Council Borough [No.2] [1992] 1 KB, 95 at 103 on the motive of the person particularly if it was done conscientiously. Counsel refers to Order 20 r 9 of C. I 47 and submits that the depositions made in the affidavit should not be irrelevant and scandalous. Counsel submits that the 1st Respondent has made depositions in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 which are referenced to cases which are entirely irrelevant to the matters before the court and therefore merit the striking out of same. Counsel submits that the affidavit in opposition itself gives rise to a contempt matter since the depositions therein particularly paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 thereof are false and/or misrepresentations to mislead the court as the contempt application therein was never in respect of Exhibit “L”. Counsel concludes his arguments by reference to the case of Helmouk v. Smith [No. 2] 35 Ch. D 449 @ 555 – C. A, which held that the object is not to vindicate the Judge but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. Counsel supports the above authority with the submission that there, indeed has been an interference with the Administration of Justice by the Respondents and thus they are squarely liable for contempt. On the capacity of the Applicants, Counsel submits that it is trite that any individual with notice of an offence being committed has the locus to bring same to the attention of the court, as in contempt proceedings. And this is particularly so as the Applicants are active members of the church. Relying on R v. Moffat & ors exp. Allottey [1971] 2 GLR 391. Counsel submitted that any conduct which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrepute or to interfere with any pending litigation is contempt of court. Counsel added further that “…once the Respondents became aware of the pendency of the motion before the High Court, any conduct on their part which was likely to prejudice a fair hearing of that motion or interfere with the due administration of justice amounted to contempt of court”. Counsel submitted that the Respondents have notices of all the 4 cases pending in the High Courts in Tarkwa, Accra and Sekondi AGAINST THEM. Counsel submitted that the Respondents having represented the church variously in the Exhibit “F” case cannot claim to be non-parties to the suit, particularly so as they deposed to their affidavit in opposition of having had knowledge of the suit. On this, Counsel referred to the case of (a) Interim Executive (Head of Apostolic Divine Church of Ghana v. Interim Executive Council & ors (No. 2) [1984 – 86] 2 GLR 181 on non parties to the action assisting others in the doing of that which they well knew was prohibited by an order of the court… which was a wilful disobedience of the court’s order by a stranger to the litigation constituted a criminal contempt. (See also Tettegah v. Saffor [1973] 2 GLR 277. On the point that motive for contemptuous acts are generally considered irrelevant, Counsel referred to the case of R v. Poplar Borough Council (No. 2) [1992] 1 KB 95 @ 103, per Sterndale thus: “Unless and until the time comes when the law of this country is that a person may obey any order of the court on the laws as much as he likes if he does it conscientiously the question of motive is inmaterial.” And so, Counsel submitted that upon the above, the Respondents cannot justify by their averments that by reason of a hiatus in the administration of the church they proceeded to act in the manner aforementioned. Counsel also submitted that Exhibit “K” never mandated the Respondents to act as three (3) member interim committee to oversee the church as limited in scope and that Exhibit J (Letter written by the 4th Respondent) amounted to contempt as the 4th Respondent was not even a member of the purported Interim Administrative Committee. Counsel also referred to Exhibit “K” a court order as presented by the Respondents’ Exhibit “K” order was limited in scope. Counsel submitted that (Exhibit “K”) did not mandate the Respondents to organise Pastoral Council Meeting but they eventually did and appointed an interim General Secretary and went beyond the orders of the court. Counsel submitted that Exhibit “J” was not issued in the name/capacity as the interim Administrative Committee but in the name of an Acting General Secretary who was not appointed in accordance with the church constitution by the Respondents and that amounted to contempt. Counsel concluded his submission with reference to the case of Helmore v. Smith (No. 2) [1887] 35 CH. D 499 @ 455, CA on the object of the discipline enforced by the country in the case of contempt of court is not to ridicule the dignity of the court or the person of the Judge, but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. The question therefore, here is whether these has been an interference with the administration of justice. Counsel supported the above position with a local home made case of In re Kwabeng Stool, R v. Brown exp. Karikai & anor [2005 – 2006] SCGLR 35 @ 41 when Atuguba JSC stated thus: The law should not be seen to sit limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope! Those who break the law ought to be punished for it because “sparing justice feeds iniquity.” Indeed, all the above submissions had earlier been made and captured during the viva voce hearing of the case. So indeed, the instant submission filed on 11/7/2022 is generally a repeat of the earlier one though. SUBMISSION BY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS (VIVA VOCE) Counsel submitted on the authority of In Re Effiduase Stool [1998 – 1999] SCGLR 639, holding 2 on the required standard of proof in quasi criminal matters in contempt cases as proof beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel submitted that in Suit No. E12/10/2021, the depositions therein did not state any contempt committed by the Respondents. Again, Counsel submitted that the Respondents are not parties in the said suit so therefore, the Applicants only acted as busy bodies just to germinate troubles for the Respondents in the above suit. On the High Court, Tarkwa suit (Suit No. E12/3/2023) Counsel submits that aside the order of interlocutory injunction, the court made further order (Exhibit “K”) appointing a three- member committee an interim to steer the affairs of the church until further notice. Upon the above, Counsel submitted that the Respondents had the authority from the court to steer the affairs of the church until elections are held. Counsel submitted therefore that the further order of the same High Court, Tarkwa, after the grant of the injunction was understandable and so was in the interest of justice so to do. On Exhibit ‘B’, paragraph 3 thereof, the court did not restrain any other person apart from those mentioned in the order. Counsel submitted that the court indeed did not intend to restrain the church in Exhibit “B” in the Tarkwa case, according to the submission of Counsel. Counsel submitted that there is no contempt case arising in the Rosina Aryee case. Counsel wondered why if indeed in the Rosina Aryee case, the Respondents have been cited for contempt, why should the Applicants bring them for contempt again in this court? Counsel submitted that this clearly is an abuse of the process. Counsel conceded that indeed paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Respondent’s affidavit are irrelevant and as clearly pointed by Counsel for the Applicants, same were struck out as irrelevant. On meeting by the Respondents, Counsel submitted that it was upon the order contained in Exhibit ‘K’ and so no contempt arises here. On the contention of evasion of service, Counsel submitted that there is no contempt arising out of this as the court has options available to him for service. I must state that at the close of hearing of the submissions of Counsel in the case, Counsel for the Applicant prayed the court to, in addition to what had been argued, file written submissions so as to correct the labelling of the documents which became confusing. Counsel for the Respondent seemed amenable to this suggestion. So instead of fixing a date for the ruling in this matter, a time line was set for Counsel to file the said process as agreed. The suit was adjourned to 12/7/2023 for Ruling in this case. But upon an application filed in the case, an extension of time to file the written submissions after the ruling in the application had been delivered and the date fixed for 28/7/2023 for Ruling in this case with or without Counsel’s submissions. ANALYSIS/ OPINION: Counsel for the Applicants eventually filed his submission on 11/7/2023. Article 126 of the 1992 Constitution provides as follows; “2. The Superior courts shall be superior courts of record and shall have the power to commit for contempt to themselves and all such powers as were vested in a court of record immediately before the coming into force of this Constitution.” Also, Section 36(1) of the Courts Act, (Act 459) provides as follows: Contempt of superior courts of judicature, etc. “36(1) The superior courts of judicature shall have the powers to commit for contempt to themselves and all such powers as were vested in a court of record immediately before the coming into force of the Constitution in relation to contempt of court”. (2) In exercise of the judicial power conferred upon the judiciary by the Constitution this Act or any other law, the superior court of judicature shall have power in relation to any matter within its jurisdiction, to issue such orders as may be necessary to ensure the enforcement of any judgment, decree or order of the court”. From the nature and the form of the application, it is premised and hinged on three totally distinct suits from different courts and towns, thus: (a) Contempt in relation to Emmanuel Arthur case (Suit No. E12/10/2022 (b) Contempt in relation to Ekow Dadzie case, Suit No. E12/3/2022 (Tarkwa) (c) Contempt in relation to Rosina Aryee case (Suit No. GJ/0428/2022 (Accra) (d) Meeting amounting to contempt. There is an order for interlocutory injunction against the Defendants in Suit No. E12/3/22, and to be simply put, (The Tarkwa case), wherein the 1st and 2nd Defendants (Not the 3rd Defendant Church) were restrained together with their agents. Indeed, in the Tarkwa case, none of the Respondents, from the records was a party to the said suit. But the order captured agents of the affected Defendants. Counsel for the Applicant seemed to have advanced a lot of energy on this including the injunction factor to make his case. Counsel’s arguments and submission are quite brilliant on this and the Respondents seemed to have been caught in the web. But there is yet another order emanating from the same court and in respect of the same suit. This order, which is Exhibit “K” as labelled by the Respondents, is subsequent to the order from interlocutory injunction. This order was on an appointment of a three-member and ad hoc committee to manage the affairs of the 3rd Defendant church as the earlier order might have stalled the smooth running of the church. Even though Counsel for the Applicants did not make reference to Exhibit “K”, the Respondents did. Exhibit “K” was in respect of an order from the court setting up a three- member committee to run the affairs of the church. Exhibit “K” is the order which Counsel for the Applicant describes as PURPORTED EXHIBIT “K” in his submission. The 1st and 2nd Respondents seem to have derived their authority from Exhibit “K” for which they wrote to pastors in an attempt to run the church as envisaged by the order of the court. In that regard, the Respondents contend that they are not in contempt of court. The 1st and 2nd Respondents contended that they derived their authority from the order of the court dated 6/4/2022 from the very court that injuncted the Defendants in the case excluding the 3rd Defendant church. Paragraph 3 of Exhibit “K” (Exhibit “E” of the Applicants) provides as follows: “IT IS HEREBY ordered that the current chairman of the Defendant Applicant church, Apostle Ebenezer D. Boahen, the Deputy Chairman, Rev. A. A. Agyeman and current Principal Secretary, Rev. John Brown be appointed to form an Interim Administrative Committee to steer the affairs of the Defendant church until the successful conduct of the elections of new executive members.” The above paragraph of Exhibit “K” on the three man committee are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents in this application. As argued by Counsel for the Respondents, all the actions taken in respect of the affairs of the church as complained of by the Applicants and for which the Respondents have been hauled to this court were subsequent to the order of Exhibit “K”. So far, from the totality of the records, in so far as the Tarkwa case stands on this contempt application, there is no evidence that the Respondents did anything untoward in the church prior to the grant of this order. And the Applicants’ grounds and reasons from the records, did not appear to have accrued before the order. That being so, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents from the records do not seem to have acted in any way so as to bring the administration of justice into ridicule as they did not seem to have flouted any court’s order. The Applicants also contended that in respect of the Accra case, there is an application for interlocutory injunction which is pending and the Respondents have notice of same. So, from the Applicants, so far as the Respondents have notice of the said pending application and having proceeded to conduct meetings, the Respondents are in contempt of court. A careful study of the records reveal that all the cases for which this contempt application has been premised are all High Courts with coordinate jurisdictions. The Tarkwa one was instituted in 2021. The order for interlocutory injunction was dated 22/11/2021. The order for the appointment of a three man committee was dated 6/4/2022. The writ of summons as amended was dated 01/02/2022. The application for interlocutory injunction from the records is dated 01/02/2022. The order for interlocutory injunction in the Tarkwa case predated the Accra application. Counsel also contended that the Applicants have filed an application for contempt against the Respondents. Equally, the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein also filed a process in the Tarkwa court vide Suit No. E9/8/2022 citing the 1st Applicant and others for contempt. But for the purposes of this case, this court will have to restrict itself only to this application. The law is that if a party has knowledge of an application or a process, and in this case the injunction application and one proceeds to act solely for the purpose of over reaching the application, one can be cited for contempt. (See Exp. Moffat & ors (supra) as clearly cited by Counsel for the Applicants. Proof in contempt application is one beyond reasonable doubts as per S. 13 of the Evidence Act. Regarding the Rosina Aryee case, I agree with the submission of Counsel of the Respondents that no contempt arises, upon the above. Regarding the Tarkwa case, I am convinced that per the order of the court appointing a three man committee, the Respondents hinged all of the action on the said order which has not been set aside by any court of law. And regarding the contempt on the court official, I agree with Counsel that there are several ways to kill a cat. If the party to be served is evading service, there are other means of effecting the process such as substituted service. This argument by the Applicant cannot constitute contempt, in my humble opinion. To me, this particular application raises lots of interesting issues: 1. There are three (3) different cases all pending in courts of coordinate jurisdiction spread across the country all involving a particular party amongst others in this case the church. 2. Virtually, in all of the cases, there is a claim of injunction. 3. In virtually all of the cases, there are either orders pertaining to the administration of the church in one way or the other. 4. In some of the cases, there are applications for interlocutory injunction pending 5. And in one of the cases, there is indeed an order of interlocutory injunction existing which has not been set aside by any court or appealed against 6. And, in one of the cases, indeed in the same court where the order for interlocutory injunction has been granted, the order does not affect all of the parties (in this case the church) 7. And, in one of the cases, in the same court where the order of interlocutory injunction is persisting, the same court has, subsequent to the order of interlocutory injunction, made further orders, for the smooth administration of the church, setting up a three- man committee to run the affairs of the church and interim though. Yet, in the same court there is an application for an order of contempt by the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein against the Applicants herein. BUT, to me the determination of all of the above particularly in determining all the above concerns/issues, are not before this court. May be, a higher court, may have to determine how such situations ought to be handled in future. But for now, my jurisdiction, in so far as this contempt application is concerned is to determine whether or not the Respondents are in contempt of all of the above taking into consideration the acts, omissions and conduct of the Respondents in so far as all the above processes, orders emanating from the various courts of coordinate jurisdictions, amount to contempt of court resulting in the disobedience and bring the administration of justice into ridicule and disrespect. The resolution of the above is hinged on, proof – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, as the matter is quasi-criminal. And as stated earlier in this decision, for contempt to be constituted in respect of a court’s order, the said order complained of to have been disobeyed should be unambiguous, so that the party will know what he is to do or not to do. See: (1) R v. High Court, Accra, Exp. Laryea Mensah [1998 – 1999] SCGLR 360 (2) Agbletta v. Rep (supra). Again, as stated earlier in this decision, the power of contempt is rarely invoked by the courts. It is ONLY invoked when the dignity, respect, and the authority of the court is threatened. The purpose of contempt is to protect the whole system of the administration of justice. See: (1) (2) R v. Mensah Bonsu (supra) R v. High Court (Land Division), Accra, Exp. Kennedy Ohen Agyapong [2020] 170 GMJ 1 S. C. Admittedly, Counsel for the Applicants rightly submitted that in the Rosina Aryee case, the Respondents’ knew of the pendency of the application for interlocutory injunction which was filed far later than the order s of the High Court of Tarkwa granting orders for interlocutory injunction and later on making further orders setting up a three-member committee to oversee the church’s administration until further decision of the court. This is supported by the case of R v. Bank of Ghana & ors, exp. Duffour [2018 – 2019] 1 GLR 445 S. C where it was held amongst others that even where a party knowing that a case is sub- judice but engaged in an act or omission which tendered to prejudice or interfere with the fair trial of the case, despite the absence of a court order, it may constitute contempt. To me, it is amazing and quite unfortunate too for all these cases commenced and pending, as the records go, in various courts in the country by different Plaintiffs but against others all including the church as one of the Defendants – all seeking one way or the other to injunct the church and such persons. This has created some confusion, even amongst the courts of coordinate jurisdiction. To me, this confusion has even extended to the instant application itself. I am therefore not very much surprised that this application has taken some time to conclude. It is the same confusion – particularly from the Applicants and their Counsel. In sum, in consideration of the evidence adduced by the Applicants, this court is not convinced that the Applicants were able to discharge the burden of persuasion placed on them in such quasi criminal matter the proof of which, per S. 13 of Act 323 is one beyond reasonable doubt. I agree with the submission of Counsel for the Respondent that on the authority of In re Effiduase Stool Affairs (No. 2), [1998 – 99] SCGLR 639, holding 2, the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the Respondents are not obliged to prove anything. It is rather the Applicant who is to do so. Counsel supported the above position with the case of Kangah v Kyereh [1979] GLR 458. In R v. Boateng & Oduro; exp. Agyemin Boateng & ors [2009] SCGLR 154 @ 163, per Dotse JSC stated thus: “TO HOLD THEREFORE that the Respondents are guilty of contempt would be a travesty of justice as the entire contempt proceedings are nebulous and admits of no certainty, a key requirement in proof of contempt. It would be manifestly unreliable for a court of law to entertain and convict upon it. Indeed, I find that the action is brought in bad faith. The application ought to fail in the circumstances as the Applicants were not able to discharge the burden as required by law to prove the guilt of the Respondents. The application is dismissed accordingly. Costs of Gh¢11,000.00 to the Respondents as against the Applicants. SGD G. K GYAN-KONTOH ‘J’ JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT COUNSEL: (1) KWEKU OWUSU AGYEMANG FOR THE APPLICANTS. (2) JOHN MERCER FOR THE RESPONDENTS. 21