The Republic v Dormaa Traditional Council (CA/015/2025) [2025] GHAHC 191 (9 July 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, SITTING AT SUNYANI, COURT ‘2’ ON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE WINNIE AMOATEY-OWUSU, JUSTICEOF THE HIGHCOURT SUITNO: CA/015/2025 INTHEMATTER OF ANAPPLICATIONFOR CONTEMPT THEREPUBLIC VRS. THE DORMAA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL RESPONDENT (THROUGHTHE REGISTRAR) DORMAA AHENKRO Page1of12 EX PARTE: NANA PAUL DONKOR APPLICANT OF NKRANKWANTA JUDGMENT The Applicant through his counsel filed the instant application on notice on 15th January 2025 praying the Court for an order of contempt to issue against the Respondent for its failure to comply with the Court’s orders made on21st May2024 and directed toit. The application is brought under Order 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I 47), Section 36 (1) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and Article 126 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and supported with a 19-paragraph affidavit deposed to by theApplicant. The Applicant states he has the power, consent and authority of the Nziah Akpau and Ngessah Kwaku Royal Families of Nkrankwanta in the Dormaa West Municipality in the Bono Region to depose to the affidavit Page2of12 on their behalf as the facts are well within his personal knowledge and belief. He attached as Exhibit ‘A’, a Power of Attorney. The pith of the Applicant’s case is that he issued a petition against Nana Buru Yaa Assamala (Obaapanin of Nkrankwanta), Cosmos Adjei (styling himself as Chief of Nkrankwanta) and Nana Kwame (Abusuapanin of Fa-Saah’s family), all of Nkrankwanta in the Dormaa Traditional Area which he filed at the Respondent’s Registry on 5th October 2018, seeking the reliefs endorsed thereon. Exhibit ‘B’ is a copy of the petition. The Respondents filed their response as per Exhibit ‘C’ to which he also filed a Reply as per Exhibit ‘D’. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Issues was filed on 21st January 2021 as per Exhibit ‘E’ whilst the Respondents filed Additional Memorandum of Issues on 29th July 2021 as per Exhibit ‘F’. According to the Applicant, the case had been ripe for hearing since July 2021 and he caused his solicitors to write three letters, Exhibit ‘G’, ‘G1’ and ‘G2’ to the Respondent’s Registrar requesting a date for the hearing of the petition by its Judicial Committee. Although the letterswere received by the Registrar, the Registrar did not deem it fit to acknowledge receipt of them, let alone tohave adatefixed for thehearing. Page3of12 Due to the Respondent’s flagrant and wilful refusal to empanel a Judicial Committee to hear the petition, he caused his solicitors to file an applicationfor judicial review by way ofmandamus on1stSeptember 2023, Exhibit ‘H’, to compel the Respondent to empanel a Judicial Committee to hear his petition. Although Exhibit ‘H’ was served on the Respondent by substituted service upon the order of the Court, the Respondent failed to file any response thereto. Consequently, on 18th March 2024, the application was moved and the Court delivered its Ruling on 21st May 2024 as per Exhibit ‘J’ and on page 17 and 18, particularly ordered as follows: “The Respondent herein, the Dormaa Traditional Council as a matter of Priority to empanel a Judicial Committee within 30 days from the day this order is served on the Respondent and fix a clear date and time to begin the hearing of the Petition by the Petitioner filed at the registry of the Dormaa Traditonal Councilon 5/10/2018,Exhibit B”. It is the Applicant’s case further that despite the clear and unambiguous orders of the Court, the Respondent has with uttermost disdain spurned Page4of12 the orders by refusing to empanel a Judicial Committee within the period as ordered damning the consequences. That, the continuous refusal of the Respondent to empanel a Judicial Committee is contemptuous of the Court and tends to put the administration of justice into disrepute and public ridicule. Again, that the wilful disregard by the Respondent is an open display of disrespect to spite the Court and make mockery of the legal process and that the Respondent would continue with the contemptuous act unless an order of contempt is issued against it.For the foregoing, the Applicant prays the Court to attach the Respondent for contempt. On 27th January 2025, the return date for the application, the Court observed there was no affidavit of service on record indicating the Respondent had been served with the application and therefore ordered Applicant’s counsel to ensure service and further ordered that Hearing Notice relative to the next adjourned date, 3rd March 2025, be served on the Respondent. When the Applicant could still not serve the Respondent after four attempts because the Respondent’s Registrar was on leave, he Page5of12 caused his solicitor to file a motion ex parte on 3rd April 2025 for substituted service ofthe applicationonthe Respondent and the same was granted on 4th April 2025 to be served together with Hearing Notice for 28th May 2025. Although there is affidavit of posting sworn on 22nd April 2025 indicating that on the said date, the order for substituted service, the application for contempt and the Hearing Notice were served in the manner prescribed in the order for substituted service, the Respondent still failed to show up in Court or file an affidavit in opposition. Having spurned the opportunity to be heard, on 28th May 2025 the Court proceeded to consider and dispose of the application on the basis of the papersfiled and oralsubmissionofthe Applicant’s counsel. The fact that the Respondent did not file an affidavit in opposition does not mean the application must automatically succeed. The Court must consider the application on its merit to make a determination. The Respondent’s failure to file an affidavit in response is only deemed an admission of the facts contained in the affidavit in support and such unchallenged facts are treated as having been established before the court. Page6of12 See Republic v. Court of Appeal, Accra; Ex parte Tsatsu Tsikata [2005- 2006]SCGLR 612per Wood JSC(as she then was). The High Court’s power to commit for contempt is statutory, stemming from Article 126 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 36 (1) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), with the procedural rules for invoking the said jurisdiction provided for in Order 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I 47). This power seeks to safeguard the authority and dignity of the judicial process and punish conduct that tends to bring the administration ofjustice into disrespect ordisregard. In Republic v. Numapau, President of the National House of Chiefs and Ors; Ex parte Ameyaw II (No. 2) [1999-2000] GLR 283, the Supreme Court defined contempt of court as: “In brief, contempt is constituted by any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the dignity of the Court or respect of the authority.” Also, in Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex parte Laryea Mensah [1998-99] SCGLR 360 at page 368, the Supreme Court had this to Page7of12 say: “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 abstain from doing some act; and the order sought to be enforced should be unambiguous and must be clearly understood by the parties concerned.” See also Republic v. Sito I; Exparte FordjourI [2001- 2002]1GLR322. Because contemptofcourt is aquasi-criminal offence andthe punishment for it may include a fine or imprisonment, the standard of proof required of the Applicant is proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. Thus, the Applicant must first make out a prima facie case against the Respondent before the Court would turn to consider the defence put forward by the Respondent. See Kangah v. Kyereh & Ors [1979] GLR 458; Republic v. Numapau, President of the National House of Chiefs [supra]. To establishcontempt ofcourt, the Applicant must prove that: Page8of12 i. There is a judgment or order requiring the contemnor to do something other than the payment of money or abstain from doing something; ii. The contemnor knew what precisely he was expected to do or abstainfromdoing; and iii. The contemnor has failed or refused to comply with the terms of thejudgment ororderand thatthe disobedience is willful. The fact that the Applicant has a petition pending before the Respondent since 5th October 2018 is not in doubt. Exhibit ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ are the processes that have been filed by the Applicant and the respondents to the petition before the Respondent. Exhibit ‘A’ is a Power of Attorney given by the Applicant to one Zaccharia Adama to represent him in all matters relating to the petition pending before the Respondent. Exhibit ‘G’, ‘G1’ and ‘G2’ are copies of letters that solicitor for the Applicant wrote to the Respondent’s Registrar requesting the empaneling of the Judicial Committeeand hearing ofthe petition. Page9of12 There is again no controversy that following an application for judicial review by way of mandamus filed by the Applicant on 17th January 2023 (Exhibit ‘H’) against the Respondent, this Court, differently constituted, delivered a Ruling on 21st May 2024 (Exhibit ‘J’), the crux of which can be found on page 17 to 18 as follows: “Subsequently, I order and direct the respondent herein, the Dormaa Traditional Council as a matter of priority to empanel a judicial committee within 30 days from the day this order is served on the respondent and to fix a clear date and time to begin the hearing of the petition filed at the registry of the Dormaa Traditional Council on 5/10/2028, Exhibit ‘B’.” Based on Exhibit ‘J’, there is no doubt there is a Ruling of the Court requiring the Respondent to do an act other than the payment of money, that is, to empanel a Judicial Committee to hear the Applicant’s petition, Exhibit B, which has been pending beforeit since 5/10/2018. But, did the Applicant make the Respondent aware of the Ruling or order of the Court? This is because without the Respondent having knowledge of the Ruling or order and knowing unequivocally what is expected of it, Page10of12 it cannot be held in contempt of court. The order as couched from Exhibit ‘J’ clearly indicated that the Respondent was to empanel the Judicial Committee within 30 days from the date the order is served on it and fix a clear date and time to begin the hearing of the petition. The Applicant adduced no evidence in his affidavit in support to prove that the Ruling, Exhibit J, or any order drawn up therefrom, was served on the Respondent as ordered by the Court and when. In the absence of the relevant evidence, the Respondent is deemed not to be aware of the Ruling or order of the Court and consequently, cannot be said to have failed or refused to comply with the same, the disobedience of which is wilful. From the foregoing, I find that the Applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case of contempt against the Respondent. The application is dismissed. There shall be no order astocost. SGD. Page11of12 WINNIE AMOATEY-OWUSU JUSTICEOF THE HIGH COURT PARTIES: 1. APPLICANTPRESENT 2. RESPONDENT ABSENT LEGALREPRESENTATION: 1. DAVID ORLEANS ODURO, ESQ., HOLDING BRIEF FOR ANDREW ODURO, ESQ., FORTHE APPLICANT 2. NOLEGALREPRESENTATIONFORTHE RESPONDENT Page12of12