REPUBLIC VRS KWAKU APPIAH, EXPARTE JOSEPH AMOH & ANOR (C13/01/2025) [2024] GHAHC 406 (5 December 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT KIBI ON 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP RUBY NAA ADJELEY QUAISON (MRS) HIGH COURT JUDGE. SUIT NO. C13/01/2025 THE REPUBLIC VRS KWAKU APPIAH ….. RESPONDENT AKYEASE BUNSO EXPARTE: JOSEPH AMOH ….. APPLICANTS KWAKU AMANING APPIAH ALL OF AKYEASE BUSNO ============================================================= Respondent – Present Applicants - Present Andrew Edmond Arthur for Applicant – Present Ebenezer Oppong for Respondents – present =========================================================== Motion on Notice: Application for an order for Committal of Contempt by Applicant pursuant to Order 50 of C.I. 47 × × × Application Opposed by Respondent × × × × × × × × × × × 1 ========================================================== RULING =========================================================== The Counsel for Applicants has filed this application on notice on 2nd February, 2024 invoking the powers of the High Court Kyebi, Eastern Region to commit the respondent for contempt of court in protection of the court’s dignity which application is pursuant to Order 50 rule 1 of C.I. 47 OF 2004. The annexures to this application are the exhibits stated as follows: (a) Copy of the ruling of the 2nd day f August 2023 of the Judicial Committee of the Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council imposing an injunction order and marked as exhibit “A”. (b) Pictures and Videos of the respondent showing respondent’s willful breach of the order of the Judicial Committee of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council and marked as exhibits B, C, D & E. (c) Copy of the list of attendants to the 5th meeting of the 25th session of the state council held on the 4th day of April 2024 which was attended by the respondent in blatant and willful disregard of the injunction order and same is marked as exhibit F. (d) A copy of the Ruling of the 12th day of August 2024 certifying the facts of the respondent’s conduct as constituting breach of the injunction order and also constituting contempt of the judicial Committee of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council and same is marked as exhibit G. The contextual circumstance/situation in which this contempt action invoking the powers of this Honourable Court by the Respondent in the High Court Kyebi are these. The applicants are petitioners in the Akyease Bunso Chieftaincy Dispute currently before the Judicial Committee of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council. On the 2nd day of May, 2023, the applicants commenced an action for the reliefs endorsed on their Writ of 2 Summons and Statement of Claim. Subsequently, the applicants filed a Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction together with a statement of case seeking an injunction against both claimants/ both parties from holding themselves out as the Chief of Akyease Bunso pending the final determination of the suit before the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council on the 2nd day of August 2023, granted an injunction application to preserve the status quo until the final determination of the Chieftaincy Dispute before the Committee (exhibit A). The respondent was personally present with his counsel when the said application for injunction was adjudicated on. The respondent, being personally present at the hearing of the chieftaincy dispute before the Judicial Committee, was cautioned not to hold himself out as the Chief of Akyease Bunso in any manner until the final determination of the matter before the Committee. Despite the existence of the injunction order, on the 29th day of December 2023, the respondent violated the injunction order of the Judicial Committee of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council and held himself out as the Chief of Akyease Bunso in the full glare of the general public when he was dressed in his full regalia as the Chief and engaged in activities in his capacity as the Chief of Akyease Bunso at the Ahontan Festival (exhibits B and C). Again, on the 2nd day of Janaury 2024, the respondent despite the subsisting injunction order, held himself out as the Chief of Akyease Bunso when he was dressed in his full regalia as a Chief and paraded the principal streets of Akyease Bunso and Akyem Akyease during the Norma Festival. (Exhibits D and E). The respondent again defied the injunction order and attended a meeting of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council in his capacity as a Chief on the 5th day of April 2024 contrary to the injunction order issued against him by the Committee. The respondent, Barima Gyekye Appiah Kubi II, being his stool name, appeared in the list of attendees among those who attended the said meeting from the NIFA DIVISION. (Exhibit F) 3 The applicants on the 2nd day of February 2024 filed an application before the Judicial Committee of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council for Certification of Facts of Contempt involving the respondent pursuant to Regulation 13(5) of LI 798 and Section 33(8) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759) to enable applicants cite the respondent for contempt of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council before this Honourable Court. The Judicial Committee in its ruling on the 12th day of August 2024 stated that, the conduct and attitude exhibited by the respondent herein amounted and or constituted contempt of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council and its Judicial Committee and subsequently indicated that, it had certified that fact to enable applicants proceed to this Honourable Court to cite the respondent for contempt. (Exhibit G). In line with the ruling of the Judicial Committee, applicants are seized with the right and authority to cite the respondent’s contemptuous conduct and behaviour for contempt. The respondent on the 15th day of October 2024 in his affidavit in opposition vehemently denies he ever acted in any way that tends to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The respondent and contemnor raised two preliminary objections. (i.) to the inclusion of exhibit F titled; “AKYEM ABUAKWA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE 25TH SESSION OF THE STATE COUNCIL HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 AT OFORI PANIN FIE – KYEBI. And (ii) as to the competence of this contempt application before this Honourable Court. (i) the inclusion of exhibit F: The contemnor contends that the said exhibit was not among the documents annexed to the application for certification of fact for committal for contempt of the Judicial Committee of the Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council which ultimately has resulted in the reference to this Honourable Superior Court for investigation and imposition of the appropriate sanctions if necessary. The said exhibit was brought to the attention of the fact-certifying Judicial Committee for the first time when the latter had concluded their holding of proceedings for the said certification and 4 had retired in order to deliver their ruling on the alleged contempt. It is therefore wholly disingenuous for the applicants to include same in their exhibits allegedly positing proof of their contempt of Judicial Committee charges when that plank of accusations had only surfaced after arguments from the rival parties had concluded and a ruling delivered where the said document had not factored into consideration. In the premises the end result that I am seeking in respect of the preliminary objection is f or the said exhibit F a copy of the list of attendees containing the stool name of respondent and any narrative referencing said exhibit be excluded and expunged from the records of these proceedings in the Honourable High Court, Kyebi. (ii) the competence of this contempt application before this Honourable Court.: The contemnor says that per Order 43 rule 7(2)(a) of C.I. 47 “an order shall not be enforced under rule 5 unless (a) a copy of the order has been served personally on the person required to do or abstain from doing the act in question. Thus the non-service of a process where service of same is required goes to jurisdiction and since there has been no service of the interim injunction order personally on me this whole contempt application is therefore not properly before this court and the applicants should be non-suited. He was never been served personally or in that stead was his lawyer been served with a copy of the said interim injunction order, in brazen traduce of the provisions of Order 43 rule 7(2)(a) of C.I. 47. The respondent also contends that he has not been served with the order of the injunction, he further contends that, the Judicial Committee that gave the order was allegedly affected by a perceived real likelihood of bias that robbed it of its authority ad mandate to issue the injunction order. Respondent also contended that, the inclusion of exhibit F to the Contempt suit before this Honourable Court is wrong since same was not placed before the Judicial Committee for determination. Respondent also posits that, with the resignations of two members of the Judicial Committee, the earlier order became extinct 5 and moot and that, there was no more an order in existence, which his contumacious conducts breached to constitute contempt of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council. In arguing the substance of the application for committal for contempt, the contemnor admitted that on the 2nd of August, 2023 the Judicial Committee of the Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council granted an interim injunction restraining him from holding himself out as the chief of Akyease Bunso until the final determination and the further ordered that the person previously acting as regent should continue until the final determination of the substantive suit. He further admitted that after the interim injunction orders were made he continued attending the proceedings before said Judicial Committee until the 23rd of August 2023 which were addressed at the sitting of the said committee leading to one of the distinguished members to avoid the likelihood of bias tendering in his resignation That this occurrence was followed by the subsequent voluntary resignation by yet another member of that Judicial Committee leaving behind one solitary member that was left of the said committee. It is the contemnor’s contention that bias like fraud vitiates everything and the consequences of the resignations of the two committee members ought to have been plainly and unambiguously explained to the parties in terms of the orders given and the evidence adduced before the erstwhile committee. That he had discussions with his lawyer and his candid professional opinion was that the cause leading to the forced resignation was important. As the cause of his resignation was the existence of a real likelihood of bias it was not automatic that the said Judicial Committee could just be reconstituted and then it could continue from where the erstwhile committee left off. That his lawyer and I verily believe same to be true that the smaller the number on the committee the greater the relative probability of contagion and contamination of the other two committee members in in arriving at decisions and giving orders tainted by the bias that initially operated on the mind of the committee members. 6 That his lawyer in his conclusions informed him which that the conduct of the proceedings in this petition prior to the string of resignations were actuated by the prejudice and bias of the judicial committee members who voluntarily resigned and the probability of the contagion of bias in the two remaining members is too big a chance to be taken on justice. His lawyer informed him that the conduct of the said proceeding including the granting of the interim injunction order violated the rule that adjudicators should have an impartial independent and open mind to the determination of causes before them and hence those orders fell foul of the requirement of fairness and naturally justice thus making the orders incurably bad. That interim injunction order was made in a fashion which traduced impartiality and fairness and it ought not to be allowed to stand and become the fulcrum for mounting this contempt proceedings. That Bias like fraud vitiates everything and the bias undoubtedly inhabiting in the member of the said judicial committee who voluntarily resigned, on the balance of probabilities, contaminated the remaining two members thereof with the contagion of bias and hence the order of interim injunction was arrived at in breach of the rules of fairness impartiality and independence of though. Upon the dissolution of the original judicial committee, following the bias allegation against the said member thereof who voluntarily resigned there was the absence of any clear and unambiguous expatiation as to whether or not the order of interim injunction out lived the dissolved judicial committee. There was clear doubt as to the survival of that order within the backdrop of the maxim that bias like fraud vitiates everything. The contemnor says he was under a heavy haze of uncertainty and doubt as to how to conduct myself in the circumstances of the case since after the significant events that had occurred no one took upon themselves to re-define what responsibilities were still subsisting to be obeyed by him. That there was no provable intentional or deliberate disobedience on my part in willful traduce of the said interim injunction order. The fact that contemnor 7 consulted with his lawyer as to the state of the interim injunction order and his reliance upon his candid professional opinion that the existence of the real likelihood of bias operated to vitiate said order, demonstrated that there was no intentional or deliberate disobedience in willful fashion to the said injunction order. He posit that the regent caretaker temporarily in charge of the customary administration of Akyease Bunso was also in attendance in his official capacity. Hence it was practically impossible for the regent caretaker to be active in his official capacity and for contemnor also to caricature as the chief of Akyease Bunso. The two positions are mutually exclusive. The finding that he operated as the chief of Akyease Bunso was in obvious error. Further if the Oman chose to shower him with accolades in appreciation of me, I had no control over them. It was no offence against any law or custom for the people of Akyease Bunso to express their appreciation to a recognized royal of the stool family by showing him with accolades and praises. Finally , it should not be lost on the Honourable Court that this institution of these contempt proceedings I s a mischievous and malevolent design to induce a conviction of me so that statutorily and customarily I will be ineligible to contest for nomination, election and installation as chief of Akyease Bunso. It is vile manceuvre to secure my exclusion from consideration as chief of Akyease Bunso so that the applicant will monopolize availability to the office in deftly blocking his legitimate opponents. The Honourable court ought not to permit itself to be weaponized against the bona fide opponents of the applicant. That this application for my committal for contempt of the judicial committee of the Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council is wholly unmeritorious and it is not made out and it is pre-eminently amenable to be dismissed. The applicants in responding to the issues preliminarily raised by the contemnor /respondent contend that, the alleged conducts, actions and behaviour of the respondent are a complete and gross disregard for the authority o f the Judicial Committee, hence 8 respondent should be ordered to purge himself of the order of the Judicial Committee of the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council, and in addition convicted and punished severely, including imprisonment, since respondent has no regard for the authority of the Judicial Committee. in the case of the REPUBLIC V HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX PARTE AFODA AND ANOTHER (2001-02) 1GLR @ 416, it was held that, as a matter of public policy, it is important that, the authority of the court and the sanctity of its processes and orders be maintained at all times. It is too dangerous to give to a litigant and his Counsel, the right to decide which orders or process of the court are lawful and therefore deserving of obedience, and if not must be disobeyed. An order of process of a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be impeached by disobedience. The respondent was very much aware when the said order was made in open court, because he was personally present as well as his Counsel. Indeed, per his affidavit in opposition, paragraph 16, respondent admitted that, an injunction application was granted to restrain him from holding himself out as the Chief of Achaise Bunso but contends that, the order ought to have been served personally on him or his Counsel to give him knowledge and notice of same. By his own admission in paragraph 16 of his affidavit in opposition, respondent was indeed fully aware of the ruling containing the injunction order of the Judicial Committee o f the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council. Chieftaincy matters are regulated by different set of rules enshrined in the Chieftaincy Act, 2008, (Act 759) and the Chieftaincy (Proceedings and Functions) (Traditional Councils) Regulations, 1972 (LI 798) and these rules indicate at what point the jurisdiction of a superior court has been properly invoked as far as causes or matters affecting chieftaincy are concerned. The point was made emphatically that, the precondition to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court as far as contempt in respect of chieftaincy disputes are concerned, is when the Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council has certified a fact as constituting contempt of the Traditional 9 Council. In the case of the REPUBLIC V OMANHENE OF AHANTA TRADITIONAL AREA, EX PARTE KORKOR & OTHERS [1982-83] GLR 1154-1156, the court stated thus: “… It was clear from Regulations 13(5) of the Chieftaincy (Proceedings and Functions (Traditional Councils) Regulations, 1972 (LI 798), THAT, THE precondition necessary for the High Court assuming jurisdiction to inquire into cases of contempt of a Traditional Council acting in their judicial capacity was a certificate of an alleged contempt submitted to the High Court by the judicial committee of the traditional council concerned. Where no such certificate had been submitted as in the instant case, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain allegations of contempt of the Traditional Council acting in its judicial capacity...” The court also stated that, the above is the only requirement expected to be fulfilled in line with statute and that, apart from this precondition, no situation should arise to disqualify one from citing a person, who has willfully flouted an order of a Judicial Committee, for contempt before a High Court. The court said “… It must be emphasized that where a statute confers jurisdiction on a court or other authority and attaches conditions to the exercise of the jurisdiction, that court or other authority shall not be seized with the jurisdiction without proof of the existence of those statutory conditions…” There is also a binding legal principle that states that, a court may not yet have given an order to be complied with but so long as a process is served on you seeking to prevent you from doing something, you commit contempt should you do the act, which the process seeks to forbid. Even though one was not personally in court to hear the court pronounce the order, and one may not have been served with a copy of the order, because it has not yet been issued, one is enjoined to desist from engaging in certain activities, once he is served with the process containing that intendment. See: REPUBLIC V MOFFAT & OTHERS, EX PARTE ALLOTEY [1971]2 GLR 391-403 where it was held that: “Any conduct which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with any pending litigation is contempt of court. Once the 10 respondent 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.” At no point was service of an order said to be a precondition to ground an application for contempt in chieftaincy matters, but instead, all that is required to be proven is that, the respondent had knowledge of the pending application before the Judicial Committee to constitute a forewarning to abstain from acts that could contravene the intent of the application. It is theirr humble position that, once there is conduct amounting to contempt of court, the fact that respondent was not served personally with the order is immaterial since respondent had both actual and constructive knowledge of the existence or the pendency of the injunction order. The law has made provision for material and relevant evidence discovered later in the course of a pending suit to be tendered in evidence if at the time of filing the suit same was not available even after a diligent search. My Lady, this position is supported by the case of THE REPUBLIC V NII ADAMAH THOMPSON & OTHERS, EX PARTE, NII TETTEH AHINAKWAH II SUBSTITUTED BY FRANCIS NII AYIKAI [CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/92/2011, which settled this issue by stating that a party to an appeal before the court shall not be entitled to adduce new evidence in support of his original action unless the court, in the interest of justice, allows or requires new evidence relevant to the issue before the court to be adduced. No such evidence shall be allowed unless the court is satisfied that with due diligence or enquiry the evidence could not have been and was not available to the party at the hearing of the original action to which it relates, See: POKU V POKU [2007-2008] SCGLR 996, See: NASH V MARSHALL [1954] I WRL 1489 AT 1491 CA OR 1954 3 A.E.R 745 AT 748 CA, See: NASH V ROCHFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL [1917] 1 KB 384 AT 393. 11 In direct response to the insinuation in paragraphs 22 and 23 of his affidavits in opposition, respondent is seeking to suggest that, in view of his perceived real likelihood of bias, the injunction order ceased to have effect, and so he was free to hold himself out as the Chief of Achiase Bunso. It is trite law that, an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction persists and ought to be respected until steps are taken to either set it aside or revoked. The respondent knowing very well that, the order had not been vacated, he ought to have known that, it was still valid and that, it did not matter if the order was void or voidable, and that, the order was binding since no steps were taken to vacate it. The respondent’s insinuation in that regard is far-fetched and can certainly not be a legally sound position. The position of the law in such situations is that, where the courts have been reconstituted as happened in the instant case, the proceedings prior to the reconstitution are adopted by the reconstituted court in accordance with the rules of court. BY COURT: I have heard the parties and taken into consideration the affidavits filed, with the attached annexures, written submissions as well as the entire proceedings of the court. Article 14 (1) of the 1992 Constitution states : “(1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except in the following cases and in accordance with procedure permitted by law – (a) in execution of a sentence or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been convicted; or (b) in execution of an order of a court punishing him for contempt of court; or (c) for the purpose of bringing him before a court in execution of an order of a court; or 12 (d) in the case of a person suffering from an infectious or contagious disease, a person of unsound mind, a person addicted to drugs or alcohol or a vagrant, for the purpose of his care or treatment or the protection of the community; or (e) for the purpose of the education or welfare of a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years; or (f) for the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of that person into Ghana, or of effecting the expulsion, extradition or other lawful removal of that person from Ghana or for the purpose of restricting that person while he is being lawfully conveyed through Ghana in the course of his extradition or removal from one country to another; or (g) upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence under the laws of Ghana.” Article 14 (1) (b) of the 1992 Constitution provides that a person shall not be deprived of the right to personal liberty except in specified cases including the execution of a committal for contempt of court. This calls for strict compliance of the rules for committal for contempt as contained in the Rules of Court to avoid sacrificing or compromising the liberty of a person See: Kwame Tetteh in his book Civil Procedure: A Practical Approach @ Page 609. “By definition, a person commits contempt and may be committed to prison for willfully disobeying an order of court requiring him to do any act other than the payment of money or to abstain from doing some act; and the order sought to be enforced should be unambiguous and must be clearly understood by the parties concerned. The reason is that a court will only punish as contempt, a willful breach of a clear court order requiring obedience to its performance. Therefore disobedience which is found not to be willful cannot be punished” See: REPUBLIC 13 VRS HIGH COURT ACCRA; EXPARTE LARYEA MENSAH, [1998-99]SCGLR 360. The essential elements in dealing with the offence of contempt are thus as follows: 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 the disobedience is willful” See: REPUBLIC VRS SITO I EXPARTE FORJOUR [2001-2002] SCGLR 322 See also: Fred Obikyere in his Book, Legal Resource Book: The Law as Decided by The Superior Courts In Ghana pages 359 -360 Addressing the preliminary legal objections raised by the contemnor : i. the inclusion of exhibit F titled; “Akyem Abuakwa traditional council minutes of the first meeting of the 25th session of the state council held on the 5th day of april 2024 at ofori panin fie – kyebi and ii. the competence of this contempt application before this Honourable Court. In respect of (i) both parties are at ad idem that Exhibit F was not among the documents annexed to the application for certification of fact for committal for contempt of the Judicial Committee of the Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council which ultimately has resulted in the reference to this Honourable Superior Court for investigation and imposition of the appropriate sanctions if necessary. The said exhibit was brought to the attention of the fact-certifying Judicial Committee for the first time when the latter had concluded their holding of proceedings for the said certification and had retired in order to deliver their ruling on the alleged contempt. 14 In effect the said Exhibit F did not influence the decision of the said committee in determining its ruling. Thus though exhibit F is relevant material, for the purposes of this application it would not be considered as it was not part of the materials presented for ruling before the judicial committee. On the second objection, It is trite learning that the decisions of Bodies with judicial powers or bodies with statutory authority to make judicial orders can also give rise to contempt; though one could not be in contempt in the absence of a willful breach of order to do or refrain from doing some act. Thus the disobedience of an order of a judicial committee of a traditional council such as the Judicial Committee of Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council, Kyebi gives rise to contempt charges against the person disobeying the order. Again, a party cannot take it upon himself to proceed to disobey an order of a court or judicial committee because he believes the order is not valid or amounted to a nullity or as the counsel for respondent puts it a biased decision. The rule is that if the order is wrong, the party has to take steps to set it aside. It is therefore no defence to contempt charges to argue that the order is biased thus a nullity. See: S.A Brobbey in his Book The law of Chieftaincy in Ghana pages 546 - 548. Again, as a matter of public policy, the decision by any competent court is valid and binding unless reversed, varied or set aside by a higher court. See: EMOS CONSULTANCY LIMITED VRS MECHANICAL LLOYD COMPANY LIMITED [CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/09/2023. SC The counsel for contemnor stated that the contemnor acted based on counsels legal advice and can therefore not be held liable for the contempt. He referred the honourable court to the case LUGUTERAH VRS NORTHERN ENGINERING CO. LTD (1980) GLR 69 in which TAYLOR J. (as he then was) held thus: 15 “In this case the two respondents acted under legal advice so there is not an act of willful contempt: the lawyer by this submission has in effect admitted that he gave the legal advice negligently, so he also did not do it intentionally.” This cannot be the true facts in this instance. The respondent counsel and respondent were present during proceedings when the reconstituted judicial committee after a discus with parties adopted the proceedings. The position of the law in such situations is that, where the courts have been reconstituted as happened in the instant case, the proceedings prior to the reconstitution are adopted by the reconstituted court in accordance with the rules of court. The Supreme Court in the case of ADOMAKO ANANE VRS NANA OWUSU AGYEMANG AND 7 OTHERS [CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/42/2013 has stated thus, “the current position of the law should be that, the decision to adopt proceedings in previous cases should rest with Judges and not parties.” This, buttresses the decision by the Judicial Committee to adopt the previous proceedings to allow the case to proceed to save time and resources. See also: THE REPUBLIC VRS OPUNI (J3/01/2024) [2024] GHASC 37 (19 June 2024).SC It is the view of the contemnor that so far as the injunction was not served on him or the lawyer even though they were both personally present; it cannot be said they have been dully notified thus a breech made by them. The contemnor admitted that on the 2nd of August, 2023 the Judicial Committee of the Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council granted an interim injunction restraining him from holding himself out as the chief of Akyease Bunso until the final determination and they further ordered that the person previously acting as regent should continue until the final determination of the substantive suit. Indeed the counsel for contemnor and contemnor admit that after the said injunction ruling they attended hearings and I quote “That I say that we attended a couple of the proceedings before said Judicial Committee until the 23rd of August 2023 when an earth-shattering 16 event occurred at the sitting of the said committee…” it is therefore without a shadow of doubt that the contemnor and counsel had actual/constructive notice of the ruling on interim injunction. The precondition to ground an application for contempt in chieftaincy matters, it must be proven that the respondent had full knowledge of the ruling by the Judicial Committee to constitute a forewarning to abstain from acts that could contravene the intent of ruling /judgment.(See: paragraphs 17 – 18 of affidavit in opposition) The court holds that the contemnor /respondent though was not served personally with the order had both actual and constructive knowledge of the injunction order and continued to participate in proceedings without raising any objection. Indeed he says he disobeyed it because the panel was reconstituted after two members of the committee recused themselves respectively. In conclusion, It is the view of this Honourable Court that, the defence of the contemnor and in this case the respondent herein, especially that, he acted based on his lawyer’s advice does not make his actions unwillful. A contemnor cannot adopt this ruse to throw dust into the eyes of the court. There is no doubt that the respondent is guilty of the contempt charges brought against him. The court imposes on the respondent a fine of Ghc20,000.00 to purge the contempt payable within ten (10) days in default seven (7) days imprisonment. The respondent is sternly warned in no uncertain terms to desist from such conduct unless regularized or until the final determination of the suit. H/L RUBY NAA ADJELEY QUAISON [MRS.] JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT 17