Republic Vrs Aba Ex Parte Akuaba And Another (C13/18/2024) [2023] GHAHC 634 (6 December 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOUR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HO – VOLTA REGION CORAM: CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS) J. _____________________________________________ SUIT NO. C13/18/2024 DATE: 6TH DECEMBER, 2023 FRANCIS KOJO ABA & ANOR : PLAINTIFFS AND PAUL KOMLA ABA & ANOR : DEFENDANTS IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO COMMIT RESPONDENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT THE REPUBLIC VRS. PAUL KOMLA ABA RESPONDENT EX-PARTE: FRANCIS ABA SELASI AKUABA APPLICANTS JUDGMENT Contempt is a substantive action on its own Oswald on Contempt of Court 3rd Edition stated on what constitute contempt as, “To speak generally contempt of court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrepute or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants or their witnesses during the litigation.” It follows that the court need not necessarily give an order to do or refrain from doing an act to constitute contempt of court. It was held in the case of Republic v. Nana Osei Bonsu II Mamponghene & 2 Ors (2009) 14 MLRG 1 at 13 holding 14 that; “To be guilty of contempt of court or contempt of the Regional House of Chiefs, there must be conducts, action or omissions on the part of the person charged with contempt which turns to undermine the authority of the court or tribunal by interfering with processes pending in the court or Tribunal.” See Republic v. Boateng (2009) 25 MLRG 34. Our Supreme Court in the case of Republic vs Sito 1 Ex-Parte Fordjour (2001-2002) SCGLR @ 322 clearly and definitively outlined the essential elements for the offence of contempt of court as which has been followed by many other decisions. These essential elements are (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 expected to do or abstain from doing. (iii) It must be shown that he failed to comply with the terms of the judgment or order and that his disobedience is willful. See also Republic v. High Court, Accra Ex-Parte Laryea Mensah (1998-99) SCGLR 360. “The courts must not only enjoy the respect and confidence of the people among when they operate, but also must have the means to protect that respect and confidence in order to maintain their authority. For this reason, any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard or interfere in anyway with the course of justice becomes an offence not only against the courts but against the entire community which the courts serve. Such conduct constitutes the offence of contempt of court and the courts are vested with the power to deal with it in a manner that is almost arbitrary. For this reason, the power is rarely invoked and only when the dignity, respect and authority of the courts are seriously threatened. It has been said that these powers are given to the courts (and the judge) to keep the course of justice free; power of great importance to society, for the exercise of the law and order prevail; those who are interested in wrong are shown that the law is irresistible.” Per Akuffo-Addo CJ in the case of Republic v. Liberty Press Ltd. (1968) GLR 123 at page 135. This dictum was referred by the Supreme Court – in the recent case of Republic v. High Curt (land Division), Accra Ex-Parte; Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, Susan Bandoh (interested Party) (2020) DLSC 9895 at page 18. By a Motion on Notice dated the 10/10/2023 the applicants seek an order of this court to commit the respondent Paul Komla Aba for contempt of court; pursuant to Order 50 of C. I. 47 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004. In the accompanying affidavit evidence deposed to by the applicants can be summed up as follows; that the parties who are step siblings had locked horns in suit No. E5/10/2018; titled, Francis Kojo Aba & Anor. vs Paul Komla Aba & Anor before the High Court Ho presided over by His Lordship E. Baah, J. (as he then was), who directed the parties to attend the Court Connected Alternative Dispute Resolution to have resolved their differences as he was enjoined under Section 72 of the Courts Act. I believe the close nit family ties between the disputant were not lost to him, my senior brother. Case of Applicants According to applicants herein the case in (Suit No. E5/10/2018) was amicably settled by mediation and a report, terms of settlement was reduced into writing. Same was signed by all the parties on the 8/01/2018; which has been exhibit here as Exhibit “A”, attached. According to applicants the terms of settlement was adopted by the court as Consent Judgment on the 6/02/2018. Exhibit “B” attached. It is the case of the applicants further that the dispute was about their late father’s estate. That per the terms of settlement which was adopted by the court on 6/02/2018 as the judgment of the court; House No. D6/6 at Ho Dome commonly known as Guinness was adjudged to be shared amongst the 3 wives of the late Gustav Komla Aba and their children, additionally the three building plots at the back of the said house should equally be shared in the same manner. Applicants continue that since the court’s judgment in 2018, respondent herein has put impediments in their way to share the property according to the court’s judgment. That recently respondent in his quest to apportion the named property unto himself has mounted iron rods on top of the subject matter house together with building materials ostensibly to continue construction of the house as can be seen in Exhibit C series attached thereto. They contend that his conduct was reported to the police where respondent said he was carrying out renovation works on the property. But at the police station, respondent later agreed to the sharing of the property, and a report made back to the police on 10/08/2023. To their dismay the respondent rather instructed a lawyer to write falsehood to the police even in the face of the clear terms of the court’s judgment. They conclude that the conduct of the respondent has brought the administration of justice into disrepute and or disregard. Respondent’s conduct is in contempt deserving of punishment. His actions and conduct are willful and deserving of punishment. In a supplementary affidavit in support of their case, applicants exhibited Exhibit “C” series being picture of the property under construction. Also building materials and blocks molded at the site with some busy individual working. The case of the respondent upon service is made in an affidavit in opposition filed on 31/10/2023. Attached thereto are Exhibit “PA1, PA2, PA3, and PA4 depicting parts of the House No. D6/6 Ho Dome as damaged or cracked and in need of repairs. According to the respondent, he admitted that he mounted some new iron rods in addition to the existing iron rods on the top of the subject matter building with the aim of roofing same with corrugated iron sheets. That his conduct was as a result of la general meeting held on Sunday 13/03/2013 concerning the Estate of the D6/ Guinness property by which all the beneficiaries agreed that the building needed urgent renovation to save it from total collapse. He also contends that there is nothing criminal about his conduct. IS THE RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT? At all times contempt of court proceedings are said to be quasi criminal. To succeed in the instant application, the applicant must first adduce cogent, satisfactory and credible evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged contemnor is aware, knowledgeable of the judgment of the court. Applicant must also show that the respondent knows exactly what he must do and what not to do. When these legal huddles are crossed, it will enable the court to determine if a willful disobedience of the court’s orders/judgement has been occasioned by this respondent. Section 13(1) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323 It provides as follows, “(1) In a civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.” See also Section 15 on burden of persuasion in particular cases where a party alleges that a person has committed a crime. See also Republic Vs. High Court Accra; Ex-parte Laryea Mensah (Supra); thus, the legal threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt is achieved by the applicant that the court assumes the jurisdiction to hear the alleged contemnor on his defence. The instant application can be classified under civil/quasi contempt or indirect constructive contempt. I will therefore proceed to determine the only issue raised by the court as whether or not the applicant has made a prima facie case against the respondent herein. I have no doubt in my mind that the respondent is aware of the Court’s judgement entered on the 6/02/2018. Respondent is a signatory to Exhibit “A” as in paragraph 17 of his own affidavit in opposition he had this to say; “In further denial, the respondent says it is the mediators and elders of the family of the parties who are to share the house in dispute as captured in paragraph 6 of the Exhibit “A”, the terms of settlement and that it was not the duty of the respondent.” Couple with other relevant portions of the terms of settlement referred to by the respondent e.g. paragraph 3 of Affidavit in Opposition, the applicant has demonstrated the needed credible proof that the respondent has knowledge of the contents of Exhibit “A” & “B” that is the consent settlement, admitted as court judgement. The above admissions in his affidavit in opposition clears every doubt that the terms of settlement and the entry of it thereof by the court on 6/02/2018 has come to his full attention. Therefore, the court is led to a conclusion undoubtedly that a prime facie case of awareness of the court’s judgement has been established. Having said so, the court will proceed to determine whether a willful disobedience of the courts orders has been occasioned/committed by the respondent that suggest the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute /disregard? Willful disobedience is usually determined by the conduct of the respondent; after the judgement has come to his attention and he is aware of what to do or what not to do. I have considered carefully Exhibits “C” series annexed to applicants’ supplementary affidavit in support juxtapose with Exhibits PA1 to PA4 Exhibited by the respondent. These exhibits show in my considered view that respondent instead of sharing or agreeing to sharing the property to his late fathers’ wives have rather taken the property as his. The exhibits depict fresh construction works ongoing without the consent of the beneficiaries. I must emphasis that the judgement of the court which is the embodiment of the terms of settlement granted that property D6/6 Ho Dome to the three (3) wives of the late Gustav Komla Aba. It will make common sense that any new development whatsoever after the judgment should be the clear mandate of those 3 wives and their children. It is my considered view further that, the conduct exhibited by respondent by moving building materials unto the property unilaterally, mounting new iron rods on top of the D6/6 Ho Dome property to continue building the structure hither to a truncated storey building amounts to interference / and or altering the judgment pronounced by the court on 6/02/2018. Respondents defence that the building was constructed in 1960 and needed urgent repairs is an afterthought and not a good defence. What the court can interpret from respondent’s conduct is his attempt to cease the property from the beneficiary wives and their children, which he has done since 2018 after the judgment; his refusal to cooperate with the ADR Mediators and family to share the property. Conclusion. Upon a careful consideration and evaluation of the Affidavit evidence in support of the instant application and the respondent’s Affidavit evidence as well; I find that the vital elements necessary to establishing willful disobedience to the standard required is made, Accordingly the instant application succeeds. I found the respondent liable in contempt of this court and convict him accordingly. Now the tone of the respondent’s affidavit evidence before the court shows that he has not shown any remorse when his disobedience was brought to his attention. I find the contents of his affidavit in opposition rather insulting. The court views the posture of respondent as willingness to continue to hold unto the property though the court has adjudged same in favour of the 3 wives of his late father. I found him liable for contempt and convict him as I find his conduct as utter disobedience to the court, and its processes. Before I pronounce my sentence, I give all the parties 10 days to meet with the elders of their family to share the property to the 3 wives and their children in accordance with the terms of settlement per Exhibit A with the assistance of the officers from the ADR and a report made to this court on or before 21/12/2023. The case shall be called on the 21/12/2023 for sentencing. Meanwhile respondent is admitted to bail in the sum of GH¢10,000.00 with one surety. He should be reminded that he is a convict and his maximum corporation in this matter will be in his best interest. 21/12/2023 for sentencing. CASE RECALLED ON 21/12/2023 FOR SENTENCING OF THE COURT. BY COURT: I have listened carefully to both learned lawyers in respect of this matter under consideration. The court takes into consideration, the fact that the convict has purged himself by total cooperation to have distributed their father’s estate pending since 2018. The fact that the parties are close blood relatives weight heavily on the court, though I condemn his unacceptable conduct since 2018. Irrespective of that I do not think Custodian Sentence will foster unity amongst these siblings. Applicant informed the court that there is now total peace. Respondent is therefore sentenced to sign a bond to be of good behavior and not to interfere anymore with the properties given to his step mothers and siblings. He is also directed to immediately remove the building materials placed on the site which he must do within 3 days. Judgement of the court. End. (SGD.) CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS) (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) PARTIES; Applicants – Present. Respondent – Present. LEGAL REPRESENTATION Gordon Akpadie for the Applicants – Present. Koku Akude for the Respondent – Present. jd* 9