Republic Vrs. Adom Ex Parte: Dominium Paints Manufacturing Industries Limited (E12/38/2022) [2023] GHAHC 656 (15 November 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HO – VOLTA REGION CORAM: CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS) J SUIT NO. E12/38/2022 DATE: 15TH NOV., 2023 THE REPUBLIC VRS. STEPHEN ADOM EXPARTE: RESPONDENT DOMINION PAINTS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES LTD. APPLICANT RULING The general Rule is that the person accused of Contempt should be served personally with the order of the court. C. I. 47 Order 50 Rule 1&4. Sub rule 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules which makes personal service on the alleged contemnor mandatory, unless same is dispense with under sub rule (5) of the same. The applicant herein does not deny the fact that he was served with the order of this court dated the 20/12/2021. Upon alleged disobedience, applicant herein mounted the instant motion to set aside the order having been procured by fraud. I have perused the affidavit in support of the instant motion carefully. There is no denial of knowledge of the order directed at the applicant herein. It is not stated also that the order of the court was ambiguous and thus not clear to the Respondent/Applicant herein. The plaint of the applicant however is that, the order obtained by the Plaintiff/Applicant/Respondent on 21/12/2021 was obtained by fraud thus pray the court to set same aside. Automatically, applicant has called into question the validity of the court’s order. The Law is clear and settled that the validity or invalidity of court order does not entitle a party to disobey the order of the court merely because he views the order as irregular, wrong, null or void. There are myriads of decisions to support he above assertions. Please see, In the cases of Republic v. High Court, Accra Ex-Parte Afoda (20012002) SCGLR 768. Republic v. High Court Accra, Ex-Parte Continental Cargo and Trade Services Inc. (2001-2002) SCGLR page 901. Republic v. Moffat, Ex-Parte Aflottey. Mosi v. Bagina (1963) 1 GLR 337 SC. Republic v. Sacker, Ex-Parte Senior High Court Registrar, Accra (198990) 2 GLR 603 and host of many, the Supreme Court spoke clearly; that a decision of a court is presumed to be valid until its alleged invalidity has been established in a court of competent jurisdiction, consequently a party aggrieved by a decision of a court on grounds of invalidity, may attack it either collaterally in the form of defence to enforcement proceeding or directly in the form of prerogative order, declaration and injunction. In further research, I have read with satisfaction the Apex Court’s clear pronouncement in the case of Ex-Parte Afoda (Supra) when it warned that, “…the fact that an order or a process from a court of competent jurisdiction is perceived and considered void or erroneous should not give a party who is affected by the order, or to whom the process is directed the lightest encouragement to disobey it, and when cited for contempt only to turn round to justify the said disobedience by the fact that the order ought not to have been made or the process issued in the first place. The proper thing to do is either to obey, or sue for a declaration to that effect or to apply to have it set aside.” Please see also O. T. R. (Gh) Ltd vs. BB Motors (2005) 5 MLRG 3 CA. I think that Counsel for respondent and respondent himself are confusing two issues. The case of the plaintiff/Applicant for invoking the jurisdiction of the court by the contempt application is that respondent has wilfully disobeyed the Order of Interlocutory Injunction, the court made on the 20/12/2021 made Ex-Parte. As same was served on respondent on the 21/12/2021. In the pending contempt proceedings, the applicant is alleging that the respondent though served continued to disobey the orders of the court. And additionally alleged withdrawals of money from the company account which is yet to be proved by the applicant at the hearing of the contempt application. In the face of these hard core decisions, and the failure of Counsel for applicant to demonstrate and support his application with any known Law to the contrary, I consider the application as incompetent. The Law on validity of court order till same is vacated is a primary concept of the Law known to even Law school students. Like I usually question Lawyers who make such baseless application on behalf of their clients to the court, to what effect, work?” I will therefore dismiss the application and same is dismissed with punitive cost. Cost of GH¢5,000.00 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Let the contempt proceedings begin. (SGD) CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS) (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) Parties – Absent. LEGAL REPRESENTATION; Andrews K. B. Aning holding brief for Kwadwo Bonsu for the Applicant – Present. Benedict Kofitse for the Respondent – Present. 4