Ahmed v Asare (CR/0366/2024) [2025] GHAHC 134 (13 February 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD IN ACCRA ON THURSDAY THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE MARY M.E YANZUH, JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE SITTING AT CRIMINAL COURT THRE (3) SUIT NO. CR/0366/2024 THE REPUBLIC VRS. COMFORT ASARE RESPONDENT EX PARTE ABDULLAH AHMED APPLICANT JUDGMENT Per an application filed on the 26th of June 2024, the Applicant herein, Abdullah Ahmed prays the Court to commit the Respondent herein, Comfort Asare for contempt of Court. Even though the applicant titles this application as a contempt application, the motion paper itself is indicative that same is not the case. That is because the applicant 1 in the motion paper prays for the order of contempt “directed at the Respondent, privies, servants, representatives, agents or anyone claiming through or under the Respondent.” Then in the affidavit in support, he prays for the following reliefs a) A Declaration that with effective date of 22/08/2012 Grace Akanjog-yue, Respondent and/or Department of Social Welfare is estopped in any proceedings against the Applicant and Yasmina Abdullah Ahmed. And having lack Capacity, the Respondent is hiding behind others in committing or threatening to commit Human Trafficking. Hence the Respondent is liable for all losses and damages suffered by the Applicant; b) An Order for wilfully obstruction of Justice; c) An Order for bench warrant, with punitive imprisonment sentence and fines; d) Order that Grace Akanjog-yue respectively renounced or abdicated her parental and marital duties, which existed between the Yasmina Abdullah Ahmed and the applicant; e) An Order to bring Yasmina Abdullah Ahmed, during every proceedings of this instant application, until final determination; f) An Order to specifically return Yasmina Abdullah Ahmed into the Applicant's household on the date of final determination of this instant application, with Police and/or Military Protection; g) An Order to furnish this honourable court with the said Police charge sheet/Police extract, Police Medical Report, profile or identity of the Indian woman whose name is unknown as well as all proceedings concerning the event of 13th August, 2023, which took place before any lower court. Hence to set aside same; h) An Order to remove any occupant from the said apartments with house number 35, 5th street-Dawhenya with GPS address GN-0336-3315; i) An Order directed at Department of Social Welfare to lift or pierce any veil of incorporation on the Respondent; and 2 j) An Order that in lieu of the above relief (c), the Respondent is compelled to bring Grace Akanjog-Yue, Joyce Antoinette Kulevor, Patience Ashorkor Quaye, Natalie Kokor Hammond, Enoch Nuer Nartey, Alex Kofi Norvo, Doe Gaddah, Wisdom Narh Nalobi, Catherine Agbenyo, Morfiabu Agnes, Macdonald Azure, Jimmy Freeno, Eunice Accam, Kamel Mohammed Ibrahim as well as the Indian woman whose name is unknown, during every proceedings of this instant application until final determination.” The story of the applicant in the affidavit in support of the application was incoherent but to try to do justice to the application sought, I managed to scan through the paragraphs and the attached documents to make sense of same. The story of the applicant basically is that he used to be called Nathaniel McNamas Nalobi Kabu a former employee in the UAE in an Oil Company. The Respondent is the National Director of the Department of Social Welfare at the Department of Social Welfare’s Headquarters in Accra. He stated that one Yasmina Abdullah Ahmed is his daughter who he birthed with one Grace Akanjog-yue. In the year 2012 he travelled to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for greener pastures and left Grace and his daughter behind. In December 2012 he invited Grace and Yasmina his daughter to join him and on arrival in the UAE he and Grace had series of misunderstanding. As a results of these events Grace made a report to the police in the UAE and he was arrested. The police resolved that the applicant allows Grace and daughter to return to Ghana so on the 29th of July 2013, he together with Grace and his daughter travelled to Nigeria en route to Ghana. On reaching Nigeria on the 30th of July 2013, he hired a vehicle, which took all three of them to the Aflao border. At the Aflao border at about 1800 hours he asked Grace to go to a nearby Total fuel station and buy drinks for their daughter. Grace returned and realised that the applicant and their daughter had disappeared with her luggage. 3 Grace reported the matter to the DOVVSU unit of the Accra Central police. The police teamed up with the Attorney General's office, the Immigration Department as well as Interpol to have the applicant arrested and the daughter traced but to no avail. Investigations later disclosed that the applicant later returned to Abu Dhabi on the 31st of July 2013 a day after Grace was abandoned at the Aflao border. It was in August 2023 that Grace had a tip off that the applicant had visited a house at Dawhenya in the company of the child and caused the arrest of the applicant and the child taken to the Social Welfare Department at Prampram. The applicant filed an application in the Human Rights Division of the High court ostensibly for custody of his daughter. The court on the 11th of December, 2023 found that “I have heard the applicant and I have also heard counsel for the Respondent as well as the representative of the Social Welfare Department. I am of the view that firstly, this application should have been filed in the family court and secondly that given the circumstances of the case it would be unjust to release the child into the sole custody of the Applicant. It is the view of the Court that the intervention by the Social Welfare Department to keep the child in its custody with access to both parents until the matter can be amicably resolved between the parents is proper. Application is therefore dismissed.” The applicant therefore filed this application to the court for his reliefs stated supra. The respondent did not file any affidavit in opposition. There is an affidavit in opposition deposed to by Maara Pelpuo a State Attorney and that was because a State 4 Attorney appeared in court as representing the Respondent. The said affidavit was filed on the 9th of July 2024. This court would not make any reference to same as the said Maara Pelpuo the Assistant state attorney is not the respondent herein. Contempt is a quasi-criminal matter and as in all criminal matters, liability is personal and as such it is desirable as in Criminal matters that the Respondent personally answers to the charge. This court will take it that the Respondent failed to file any response to the application. THE LAW AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE INSTANT CASE The laws on contempt, from it types, standard of proof and its essential ingredients are well established by case law. In the case of IN RE EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS (NO.2); REPUBLIC VRS NUMAPAU, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX-PARTE AMEYAW II (N0.2), (1998-99) SCGLR 639, the Supreme Court held that “Contempt of court may be classified either as direct and indirect or as civil and criminal. Direct contempt’s are those committed in the immediate view and presence of the court (such as insulting language or acts of violence) or so near the presence of the court as to obstruct or interrupt the due and orderly course of proceedings. Indirect (or constructive) contempt’s are those which arise from matters not occurring in or near the presence of the court, but which tend to obstruct or defeat the administration of justice, and the term is chiefly used with reference to the failure or refusal of a party to obey a lawful order, injunction, or decree of the court laying upon him a duty of action or forbearance. Civil contempts are those quasi contempts which consist in the failure to do something which the party is ordered by the court to do for the benefit or advantage of another party to the proceedings before the court, while criminal contempts are acts done in disrespect of the 5 court or its process or which obstruct the administration of justice or tend to bring the court into disrespect.” It is now settled that since contempt of court is a quasi – criminal offence and one found liable can suffer punishment for it, the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt as pertains in criminal trials. Section 13 (i) of the Evidence Act NRCD 323 provides thus: “In any civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue required proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In the case of Comet Products UK Ltd v. Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 1 All E R 1141 at page 1143-1144, CA it was held that: “Although this is a civil contempt, it partakes of the nature of a criminal charge. The defendant is liable to be punished for it. He may be sent to prison. The rules as to criminal charges have always been applied to such proceedings. It must be proved with the same degree of satisfaction as in a criminal charge.” The holding 2 of the headnotes in the case of In Re Effiduase Stool (supra), the Supreme Court held thus “Since contempt of court was quasi criminal and the punishment for it might include a fine, or imprisonment, the standard of proof required was proof beyond reasonable doubt. An applicant must, therefore, first make a prima facie case of contempt before the court could consider the defences put upon by the respondent.” Since the Applicant is the one accusing the Respondent of wrongdoing, he had the burden to prove that assertion in line with section 15(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975, Act 323 which provides that “unless and until it is shifted, the party claiming that a person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has the burden of persuasion on that issue”. 6 Since the applicant was the one that had asserted that the Respondent were guilty of contempt, the burden of proof was upon the applicant to prove that the Respondent breached the order of the court and that they did so willfully. In the case of REP V. SITO 1; EX-PARTE FORDJOUR, (2001-2002) SCGLR 322 the Supreme Court summarized the ingredients that an applicant for contempt of court in the nature as the present case must prove in order to succeed 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 and; (iii) It must be shown that he failed to comply with the terms of the judgment or order and that his disobedience is willful. I have combed through the application filed and its annexures and I do not find any order requiring the respondent to do or abstain from doing something, I also do not find it demonstrated that the respondent is aware or knows precisely what she is expected to do and has lastly failed to comply. It seems to me that the applicant’s sole purpose in filing this application is for custody of his child. During the hearing of this application, I sought to direct him on the proper procedure to channel his redress and even sought to direct him to the Legal Aid Commission for legal assistance, but he was obstinate in filling copious and incoherent 7 processes. The application is dismissed as same is without merits. There will be no order as to costs. PARTIES: APPLICANT PRESENT RESPONDENT PRESENT COUNSEL: APPLICANT IN PERSON PRESENT EMMA MESSIBA FOR THE REPUBLIC PRESENT (SGD) H/L MARY M.E YANZUH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT 8