REPUBLIC VRS EMMANUEL NII ANKRAH & 6 ORS, EXPARTE ERIC HAYFORD MINTAH (GJ/1136/2016) [2023] GHAHC 620 (21 December 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GHANA (LAND COURT SEVEN (7) HELD IN ACCRA ON THE THURSDAY THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU, J. ======================================================================== SUIT NO. GJ/1136/2016 THE REPUBLIC VRS 1. EMMANUEL NII ANKRAH 2. MATTHEW ANANE 3. GHANDI BOATENG 4. JAMES HAGAN 5. BENJAMIN OBENG 6. KOJO AFFUL 7. KOFI AINOO (alias OCTOPUS) :: RESPONDENTS EX PARTE: ERIC HAYFORD MINTAH :: H/NO. 108, NEW BORTIANOR – ACCRA =================================================== APPLICANT R U L I N G The Respondents have been dragged before me for their Contempt of this Court. The Applicant is a Chairman of some stations at the Kaneshie Market Complex, which used to be Kaneshie Mankessim-Ajumako-Assin Fosu Drivers Union. However, due to the large number of the membership which was contrary to the Constitution of the GPRTU, two New Local Unions were created under the same charter. There emerged the Kaneshie-Mankessim-Ajumako and the Kaneshie- Assin Fosu sub branches with their distinct membership running their businesses peacefully until a point when one Ebenezer Acquah and his group tried to prevent RULING DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU ON 21ST DECEMBER, 2023 AT LAND COURT SEVEN IN SUIT NO. GJ/1136/2016 the Applicant’s group from operating. When all domestic attempts to have an amicable settlement failed, the matter went to Court and Judgment was given on 26th February, 2021. After some initial challenges, the Applicant who obtained the Judgment put in Motion the execution process which faced several oppositions leading to a Contempt Application being brought against one Robert Darkoh and the Respondents, save the first on 5th January, 2023. The National General Secretary of GPRTU, by name Godfred Adogma Abulbire sought permission from the Court to settle the matter, which was successful and Terms of Settlement were eventually filed on 4th April, 2023. The second to the sixth Respondents and their members were not to be part of the Kaneshie-Mankessim-Ajumako Local Branch of GPRTU which the Applicant happened to be the Chairman, but the National Secretariat of GPRTU tasked the Greater Accra Regional branch to assign them a different location to ply and operate. The Terms of Settlement were adopted by the Court as Consent Judgment. After the Judgment, the first Respondent who is the Chairman of the Greater Accra Region and doubles as the National Vice Chairman of the Union in total disregard for the Judgment of the Court on 26th February, 2021 and the subsequent Consent Judgment on 4th April, 2023 organized the second to the sixth Respondents who were contemnors in the previous application with their followers into a New Local Union. At paragraphs 23, 24 & 25 of the supporting affidavit of the Motion paper, the Applicant deposed thus; “23. That the 1st Respondent having seen to this new rival local union went ahead to grant the 2nd to the 6th Respondents’ new union and an operation charter and as if that was not enough the 1st Respondent came physically to place the 2nd to 6th Respondents at the very place of my union’s business operation and ensured that the Respondents ply the same route just as my union and its members. 24. That as a result of this conduct Respondents have once again in totally disrespect (sic) for the Court’s judgments mentioned above RULING DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU ON 21ST DECEMBER, 2023 AT LAND COURT SEVEN IN SUIT NO. GJ/1136/2016 driven myself and my members away from where the Court assigned to us to conduct our business. 25. That all attempts by myself and my members to assert our rights over our Court designated portions of the lorry park has been impossible as the 1st Respondent being the architect of the formation of the rival union and the fact that he receives direct financial benefits from its operations has strongly put his support behind the 2nd to the 6th Respondents for which reason they would not listen to any word of wisdom either from myself or members of my union”. Based on the above, it is the case of the Applicant that the second to the seventh Respondents are seriously conducting their business at an unlawful place which is a blatant disobedience to the clear orders of the Court and must be punished by imprisonment to preserve the honour and dignity of the Court. Contempt is Quasi-criminal and the standard of proof is no less the criminal standard. This was captured by Baffoe- Bonnie JSC in THE REPUBLIC VRS BANK OF GHANA & 5 OTHERS, EX PARTE BENJAMIN DUFFOUR, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/34/2018, DATED 6TH JUNE 2018, S. C. (Unreported) thus: “The standard of proof in contempt proceeding is well settled. Contempt of Court is a Quasi-criminal process which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is so whether the act complained of is Criminal Contempt or Civil Contempt.” See also REPUBLIC VRS NII ACHIA II, EX PARTE JOSHUA NMAI ADDO [2015] 83 GMJ 7 @ 13, S. C. The Respondents generally denied the Contempt allegation and indicated that the 2nd to the 7th Respondents are operating at different places. It was on that basis that they applied for the Court to visit the locus. It was observed that the National General Secretary of the GPRTU, by name Godfred Abulbire filed an affidavit and even attached some documents to it. This was challenged by the Applicant because he is not a party. The Court agrees with the Applicant that since the deponent is not a party to the action, he has no capacity to file an affidavit in the manner in which he did. He could have filed a RULING DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU ON 21ST DECEMBER, 2023 AT LAND COURT SEVEN IN SUIT NO. GJ/1136/2016 supplementary affidavit in support of the Respondents or as an exhibit. He is just a busybody and the Court is not in the position to rely on the said affidavit. In respect of the substantive matter, it could be seen that the Applicant wants the Respondents to be punished because the first Respondent aided the 2nd to the 6th Respondents to form a New Local Union and granted them a new operational charter which they are operating with. I am not sure that alone is enough to constitute a defiance of the Court’s Order, because I found no part of the Judgment where the Respondents were forbidden from seceding if they could not operate peacefully together with the Applicant’s under the umbrella of the same Local Union. At this stage, it is essential to remind ourselves of the ingredients of Contempt as espoused in the case of REPUBLIC VRS SITO; EX PARTE FORDOUR [2001–2002] SCGLR 322 thus: “The essential elements of the offence of Contempt of Court are: (i) (ii) 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; and (iii) it must be shown that he failed to comply with the Terms of the Judgment or order and that his disobedience is wilful”. While it cannot be disputed that the Applicant obtained Judgments against the second to the sixth Respondents, it cannot be affirmatively asserted that the Respondents have failed to do something which the Court asked them to do or they have done something which the Judgment forbade them. It was further asserted by the Applicant that the Respondents had driven him and his members away from where the Court assigned to them. Again, this was found not to be the case. When the Court visited the locus, it discovered that the Applicant’s Union and that of the Respondents were on their respective lands. RULING DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU ON 21ST DECEMBER, 2023 AT LAND COURT SEVEN IN SUIT NO. GJ/1136/2016 Though, they had their stations around the same place and shared a boundary, there was no indication that the Respondents had driven the Applicant’s and his members away from their land. The Courts are cautioned not to allow its coercive powers to be wrongly invoked to punish innocent persons for contempt. The Court of Appeal per Irene Danquah JA in REPUBLIC VRS YIADOM II & 3 OTHERS [2015] 85 GMJ 104 @ 135 held thus: “It is a duty of the Court to be able to identify genuine application for contempt of court and those brought in bad faith with intent to cow and humiliate one’s opponent ...” (See THE REPUBLIC VRS BANK OF GHANA & 5 OTHERS, EX PARTE BENJAMIN DUFFOUR, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/34/2018, DATED 6TH JUNE 2018, S. C. (Unreported). As the Court of Appeal per Osei JA similarly stressed in THE REPUBLIC VRS NII AYINSAH SASRAKU III & ANOR., EX PARTE REV. NII TACHIE TAGOE [2016] 97 G. M. J. 72 @ 90 thus: “One way by which the justice system may NOT lose its integrity is to prevent litigants from abusing the contempt procedure. The contempt procedure should not provide an avenue for a litigant to, so to speak, teach a fellow litigant a lesson, when on the facts the integrity of the justice system is not at stake.” In the light of the above analysis, I do not think that the case of the Applicant is clearly made out against the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I am unable to convict the Respondents and the Application to punish the Respondents for contempt is hereby refused. (SGD.) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT PARTIES: APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL DZIGBA RESPONDENTS PRESENT RULING DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU ON 21ST DECEMBER, 2023 AT LAND COURT SEVEN IN SUIT NO. GJ/1136/2016 COUNSEL: ROBERT ALLOTEY ESQ., FOR APPLICANT PRESENT KWESI COLEMAN ESQ., FOR RESPONDENTS PRESENT REFERENCES: CASES CITED: THE REPUBLIC VRS BANK OF GHANA & 5 OTHERS, EX PARTE 1. BENJAMIN DUFFOUR, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/34/2018, DATED 6TH JUNE 2018, S. C. (UNREPORTED) REPUBLIC VRS NII ACHIA II, EX PARTE JOSHUA NMAI ADDO [2015] 2. 83 GMJ 7 @ 13, S. C. 3. 4. REPUBLIC VRS SITO; EX PARTE FORDOUR [2001–2002] SCGLR 322 REPUBLIC VRS YIADOM II & 3 OTHERS [2015] 85 G. M. J. 104 @ 135 5. THE REPUBLIC VRS BANK OF GHANA & 5 OTHERS, EX PARTE BENJAMIN DUFFOUR, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/34/2018, DATED 6TH JUNE 2018, S. C. (UNREPORTED). THE REPUBLIC VRS NII AYINSAH SASRAKU III & ANOR, 6. PARTE REV. NII TACHIE TAGOE [2016] 97 G. M. J. 72 @ 90 EX RULING DELIVERED BY HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU ON 21ST DECEMBER, 2023 AT LAND COURT SEVEN IN SUIT NO. GJ/1136/2016 6