REPUBLIC VRS. TEI AND OTHERS (E12/005/2023) [2023] GHAHC 613 (19 October 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT ‘B’ – HELD IN TEMA IN THE GREATER ACCRA REGION OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA – BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATRICIA QUANSAH (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) ON THURSDAY THE 19TH OF OCTOBER 2023. ________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO.: E12/005/2023 THE REPUBLIC VRS 1. SOWAH ODEI TEI 2. HENRY AKRASHIE CUJOE RESPONDENTS 3. KWAKU ASAMANI ALL OF ODUMASI NEAR AMASAMAN EXPARTE: NUMO ASAMANI OKOE HEAD OF FAMILY OF ASAMANI WE – ODUMASI APPLICANT ODUMASI PALACE ________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENTS PRESENT THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 1 APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY ISAAC ACQUAH ________________________________________________________________ RULING ON AN APPLICATION FOR CONTEMPT INTRODUCTION The Applicant herein avers he is the head of family of the Asamani We of Odumasi, the lawful heirs of the stool of Odumasi near Amasaman. According to the Applicant, the members of the Asamani We are the rightful persons to be installed as chiefs in the Odumasi village. Per the Applicant, this position was affirmed in a judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Ga Traditional Council sitting at the Ga Mantse Palace, Kaneshie, in Accra on Friday the of 25th November 1988. The said judgment further disclosed that one Nii Acquah II, who is also a member of the Asamani We was the legitimate chief of the Odumasi village. In spite of the above judgment delivered by the Ga Traditional Council, the Respondents herein, per the Applicant, have unlawfully taken over the palace of Odumasi, preventing the Odumasi Royals from entering the palace and performing the customary practices which they are entitled to undertake; and to further install the legitimate descendant of Nii Acquah. The Applicant continued to state that anytime the royal family takes a decision to install the proper person as chief of the village, the Respondents take up cutlasses and weapons and cause havoc in the village, leading to severe casualties and injuries. The Applicant thus annexed various pictures of individuals who had sustained various THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 2 degrees of injuries, as proof of the fact that the Respondents herein and their gang caused the said harm. According to the Applicant, the conduct and actions of the Respondents herein is a flagrant disobedience of the judgment and findings delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Ga Traditional Council on the 25th November 1988; and it consequently sins against section 15(1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971, Act 370, rendering the actions of the Respondents contemptuous. For bringing the decisions and the body of the Judicial Committee of the Ga Traditional Council into disrepute, the Applicant prayed this Court to commit the Respondents herein for contempt and punish them accordingly. This being a quasi-criminal matter, the Respondents filed their individual affidavits in opposition, denying the allegations against them. The 1st Respondent, for instance averred that he was the head of the Tackie Ayensu family of Ga Odumase, recognised by the same Ga Traditional Council and had no knowledge whatsoever of the judgment of the Judicial Council of the Ga Traditional Council that the Applicant referred to. He is therefore a member of the Ga Traditional Council and he would never undertake any act and neither has he acted in any way to impugn the dignity of the Ga Traditional Council, the 1st Respondent averred. Per the 1st Respondent, he is a traditional office holder and had never caused or encouraged any of his subjects or anyone else to engage in the mayhem the Applicant made mention of. The Pictures exhibited were also not in any way referable to the 1st Respondent herein. The present application was without merit and this Court should thus dismiss same. THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 3 The 2nd Respondent also filed a similar affidavit in opposition, contending that he was the Atofotse of Ga Odumasi and a traditional ruler, and had been lawfully enstooled as such. He therefore participates in all activities of the Ga Traditional Council as a member, but he had no knowledge of the judgment referred to by the Applicant because he was not yet a traditional ruler at the time the judgment was said to be delivered. The averments against him were thus untrue because he had not engaged in any raucous behaviour and neither had he caused any one to behave in that manner. The 2nd Respondent also denied any knowledge of the pictures annexed to the contempt application and prayed the Court to dismiss same. The 3rd Respondent, in his affidavit in opposition also contended that he was the duly elected and appointed head of the Achia family of Odumase; and after his appointed, he has been recognised by the Ga Traditional Council also. The 3rd Respondent continued to state that the judgment of the Ga Traditional Council had not been brought to his attention and he was also not a party to the suit. Furthermore, the judgment did not order the 3rd Respondent to refrain from doing an act or compel him to do any act; and finally, the pictures attached to the Application for contempt did not in any way associate the 3rd Respondent with the acts complained of, and so the 3rd Respondent prayed for the contempt application to be dismissed. As is usually the case, both Counsel were to file their respective written addresses but they both failed to do so. The gravamen of the issue before the Court is whether or not the Respondents herein have acted in contempt of the quasi-judicial body, the Judicial Committee of the Ga THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 4 Traditional Council by purportedly preventing the installation of the Odumasi chief and by wreaking havoc on the township. In the case of the Republic v Nkansah, unreported case of the Supreme Court delivered on the 28th November 1995, the Supreme Court held: “The power of this Court to commit for contempt is granted by article 126(2) of the Constitution, 1992. It is neither dependent on nor ancillary to any jurisdiction granted to this Court by any statute or any other law… not only to demand obedience to the Court’s order(s) but also vindicate its authority”. Order 43 rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47 also provides: (1) Where a person disobeys a judgment or order requiring the person to abstain from doing an act, the judgment or order may, subject to these Rules be enforced by one or more of the following means (i) An order of committal against that person. It is therefore imperative that the sanctity and dignity of the Courts be preserved at all times and all Court orders be obeyed; and for that matter the dignity of quasi- judicial bodies also ought to be preserved. In Hennsion v Baker [1972] 1 AER 997 at 1005, it was again held: THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 5 “If the orders of the Court can deliberately be set at naught by a litigant employing for her own personal advantage such means as here resorted to, and if indeed it be the case that she has to go unpunished for her contumacy, justice vanishes over the horizon and the law is brought into disrepute. In the memorable words His Honour Judge Curtis Releigh, the law should not be seen to sit by limply whilst those who seek its protection lose hope”. Further in the case of REPUBLIC v NUMAPAU; EX PARTE AMEYAW II AND OTHERS [1999-2000] 1 GLR 283, the Supreme Court held: Contempt of court was constituted by any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice or impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority. However, since contempt was quasi-criminal and the punishment for it might take various forms, including a fine or imprisonment, the standard of proof required to sustain liability was proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, … the applicant had to first make out a prima facie case of contempt against each of the respondents before the court could turn to consider the defences put up by the respondents. There should therefore be ample evidence to establish that a contemnor has indeed defied the orders of a Court for contempt charges to be applicable; and a prima facie case has to be first made out against the Respondent. This applies mutatis mutandis to a quasi – judicial body. In The Republic v Opanin Kwame Boamah & Ors (Civil Appeal No: J4/3/2011) [2011] GHASC 52 (27 July 2011) (NANA OWUSU ANSAH SIKATUO case), the Supreme Court THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 6 quoted with approval Lord Denning in the Re BRAMBLEVALE LTD [1969] 3 ALL ER 1062 case thus: “A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. To use the time- honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It must be satisfactorily proved. It is not proved by showing, that when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scales against him. But there must be some other evidence.” In the instant case, the Applicant contend that his family obtained judgment with respect to chieftaincy succession in Odumasi, among others; and a careful reading of the attached judgment or ruling demonstrates that at best, the Petitioners therein sought and were granted some declaratory reliefs with regards to the chieftaincy issues. It is trite that declaratory reliefs do not give rise to contempt because ordinarily, they do not contain orders for some act to be undertaken; or for a party to refrin from doing an act. I rely on the case of The Republic v Kwabena Duffour Ex parte Asare [2007 – 2008] SCGLR 395, where the Applicant, Mr Asare, brought the instant application in the Supreme Court for committal of the Respondent, Dr Duffour for contempt of the Supreme Court based on three grounds: “First, the Respondent had allegedly disobeyed three declaratory reliefs including a declaration that the Applicant was a shareholder of the respondent's company, which had been made by the Supreme Court on 7 June 2006, on an appeal from the judgment THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 7 of the Court of Appeal in previous proceedings involving the parties (reported as Dupaul Wood Treatment (Ghana) Co Ltd & Duffour v Asare [2005-2006] SCGLR 667.” The Supreme Court held: (2) The contempt complained by the applicant must relate to enforceable orders such as an order for recovery of possession of land made in favour of a successful party in a land suit and not to declaratory reliefs. Such declaratory reliefs were not enforceable in that they merely declared the rights of the parties without requiring them to do anything. It did not mean, however, that a person could not be guilty of contempt in all circumstances not involving an enforceable relief. For example, if a person were to say of a declaratory judgment that it had had been made by a stupid or useless judge or court, such conduct could be contempt of scandalizing the court. Since in the instant case, the application for committal for contempt by the Respondent was based in part on an alleged disobedience to declaratory reliefs, … no contempt was made out. See also: Dzotepe v Hahormene II [1984-86] 1 GLR 289, CA; Conca Engineering v Moses [1984-86] 2 GLR 319, CA; Republicy High Court, Accra; Ex parte Laryea Mensah [1998-99] SCGLR 360 The Supreme Court, per Atuguba JSC, further held: THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 8 Declaratory orders declare the rights of the parties but do not order anything to be done by them. They are therefore not enforceable. It has been held by this court that where the declarations are made by customary tribunal they are enforceable inasmuch as at customary law decisions are rendered in declaratory terms. It has been held in Dzotepe v Hahormene III [1984-86] 1 GLR 289, CA that unless an order for recovery of possession of land has been granted by a Court, that remedy is not open to a successful party in a land suit. Indeed, in Conca Engineering v Moses [1984-86] 2 GLR 319, CA, the remedy of recovery of possession was denied a plaintiff, who succeeded in his claim for declaration of title, because his counsel were indolent in not seeking that relief. The court left him as to a subsequent action for that relief. All this would not have been so if declarations were enforceable. … The Applicant’s judgment, I find is surely not declaratory and from the Supreme Court case above, not capable of giving rise to a committal for contempt. Moreover, there is no part of the judgment that contained any order(s) to be carried out; and finally, I tend to agree with the Respondents also, that the pictures annexed do not in any way connect the Respondents herein to the harm said to have been caused to the persons therein. There ought to be actual and adequate evidence, direct, circumstantial or otherwise to link and connect the Respondents herein to the harm complained of, but I find that no such evidence was led, save oral averments. This called for further evidence, as was held in the NANA OWUSU ANSAH SIKATUO case (supra). THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 9 I conclude with the case of Agbleta v The Republic [1977] 1 GLR 445 at 447, CA, where Azu Crabbe CJ stated thus: “It seems to follow from the authorities that wilful disobedience of the order of the court must be established before a person can be held to be guilty of contempt. With all due respect to the learned judge, this court thinks that it is one thing to find unsatisfactory the appellant’s explanation of his conduct, and quite another to infer wilful defiance from his conduct.” If there is mayhem and havoc in the town, the Applicant should lodge a complaint at the police station and the perpetrators dealt with. The application for contempt is therefore dismissed and the Respondents are acquitted and discharged. Considering the entire circumstances of this case and bearing in mind the fact that the Applicant and the Respondents hail and reside in the same village, Odumasi; in order to maintain the peace and reconciliation among the parties, I shall award nominal costs of Gh¢5,000.00 in favour of the Respondents herein. SGD. THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 10 JUSTICE PATRICIA QUANSAH HIGH COURT ‘B’ TEMA, GREATER ACCRA REGION. 19TH OCTOBER 2023. COUNSEL: FRANK YAO AMEGASHIE ESQ FOR THE RESPONDENTS PRESENT APPLICANT’S COUNSEL ABSENT THE REP vrs SOWAH ODEI TEI & 2 ORS 11