REPUBLIC VRS. QUARTEY, EX PARTE: WELBECK (CR/0408/2024) [2024] GHAHC 443 (12 November 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL COURT 4, HELD IN ACCRA ON TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP, COMFORT KWASIWOR TASIAME, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT. CASE NO.: CR/0408/2024 THE REPUBLIC VRS. MRS QUARTEY - RESPONDENT EX PARTE: JOHN WELBECK - APPLICANT PARTIES: APPLICANT- PRESENT RESPONDENT - PRESENT COUNSEL: NASHIRU YUSSIF FOR THE APPLICANT – ABSENT ABEIKU VROOM FOR THE RESPONDENT – NOW PRESENT (AT 10:17AM) RULING This contempt application was filed before this Court on 23/07/2024. Applicant asserts in his salient paragraphs as follows; “2. That I am the legitimate owner of the above-mentioned house of the subject matter in this case. 3. That I instituted a civil action against the Respondent in the matter herein for the recovery of various rooms illegally occupied by the Page 1 of 8 respondent and her family in the said property. 4. That after the rent control proceedings were adopted as consent judgement and the issuance of formal decree filed and served on the respondent, respondent failed, refused, neglected to vacate from the premises. 5. That after going through all the necessary and legal requirements by way of evicting the respondent and her siblings as the execution took place on 5th April, 2024, the respondent and her children after a few hours had unlawfully gone back into the property and occupied same with impunity. 6. That the hostile attitude by the Respondent and her children clearly shows that they have no intention of vacating same despite repeated demands. Applicant attached exhibits to the application. The 1st exhibit is an order from the District Court, District Court 2, Kaneshie. This exhibit is dated 17th May, 2022. It states “The recommendation of the Rent Officer is hereby adopted as the Judgement and the Defendant is hereby ordered to: 1. Settle rent arrears of GH¢2,400.00. 2. Give vacant possession of the property to the Plaintiff forthwith. 3. Cost of GH¢300.00 for the Plaintiff. The 2nd exhibit is a report of certificate of execution dated 8th April, 2024 where one Mary Asare bailiff certified as follows; Mary Asare and Diana Hodo attached to the Kaneshie District Magistrate Court with the assistance from a team of Police Personnel from the Greater Accra Regional Command office on the date mentioned above went to the premises of the Plaintiff/Judgement Creditor and enforced the order of writ of possession as well as the enforcement of Rent Control decision adopted as Consent Judgement by the court dated 17th May, 2022 against the Defendant in respect of Two Bedroom Self-contained being occupied by the defendant. The Respondent filed an affidavit in opposition dated 03/09/2024. She stated as follows; 4. That I was at home one day when officers from the District Court, Kaneshie came and forcibly threw my belongings out of my room on the Page 2 of 8 grounds of a purported execution of a judgement and orders of the court granted against me in a civil proceeding I did not partake in. 5. that the processes showed to me by the court officials filed in the proceedings that culminated in the said judgement were all in the name of a certain Mrs. Quartey. 6. That I am not Mrs. Quartey and assuming that I am the person that the Applicant purported to sue, I was not served with any process at all and therefore did not partake in any of the proceedings that led to the said judgement. 9. That the Property, House Number D508/17, Adabraka was owned by Isaac Quartey (deceased) by virtue of the judgement of the High Court dated 8th April, 2014 in Suit No. BL 641/2008 instituted; ISAAC QUARTEY V. JOHN WELBECK & 2 ORS. She attached exhibit MA1 which is the judgement of the High Court to the affidavit in opposition. LAW ON CONTEMPT OF COURT GENERALLY Contempt application is provided under Section 36(1) of the Courts Act, 1993(Act 459) which provides as follows: “The Superior Courts of Judicature shall have the power to commit for contempt to themselves and all such powers as were vested in a court of record immediately before the coming into force of the Constitution in relation to contempt of Court.” The same provision is found in Article 126(2) of the 1992 Constitution. In the case of REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE LARYEA MENSAH [1998-99] SCGLR 360 at page 368 where the court explained contempt of court as follows: “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.” In the relatively more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of REPUBLIC v. BANK OF GHANA & 5 OTHERS EX PARTE BENJAMIN DUFFUOR (J4/34/2018 Page 3 of 8 dated 6/6/2018) reported on ghalii.org as [2018] GHASC 37,(to be heavily relied upon in this decision) His Lordship Baffoe-Bonnie JSC delivering the unanimous verdict of the Court held regarding the modes of Contempt which I would reproduce hereunder for want of a better method to express same; “To resolve these two issues, we must first of all understand what constitutes contempt of court. Contempt of court according to Oswald on Contempt of Court (3rd edition) may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants or their witnesses during the litigation. The law on contempt in Ghana seems to be settled. The courts in Ghana have over the years dealt with the issue of contempt of court in several instances. The law is quite tritely known that Contempt in general is quasi-criminal and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to succeed against an alleged contemnor. (See the case of REPUBLIC v. SITO I EX PARTE FORDJOUR [2001-2002] SCGLR 322). On the burden/standard of proof in contempt of court, please see REPUBLIC v. NII ACHIA II; EX PARTE JOSHUA NMAI ADDO [2015] 83 GMJ 13. A respondent to a contempt proceeding may be found guilty in many ways. The party may be found guilty of direct contempt or indirect contempt which may be proved depending on the facts of the case in several ways. The standard of proof in contempt proceeding is well settled. Contempt of court is a quasi-criminal process which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is so whether the act complained of is criminal contempt or civil contempt as was rightly stated in Comet Products UK Ltd v. Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 1 All E R 1141 at page 1143-1144, CA. The court in that case held as follows: Page 4 of 8 "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." Please see also REPUBLIC v. NII ACHIA II; EX PARTE JOSHUA NMAI ADDO [2015] 83 GMJ 13. Contempt of court may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. It is no defense to a charge of contempt for a party to prove that he did not intend to commit contempt of court. In Republic v Moffat; Ex parte Allotey [1971] 2 GLR 391, it was held that it was no defense for a party facing attachment for contempt to swear to an affidavit deposing that he did not intend to commit contempt of court. Intentional contempt may arise in two ways: • Where a party willfully disobeys an order or judgment of a court, and • Where a party knowing that a case is sub judice, engages in an act or omission which tends to prejudice or interfere with the fair trial of the case despite the absence of an order of the court. In cases of willful disobedience of an order or judgment of the court, the following elements have to be established: 1. That there is a judgment or order requiring the contemnor to do or abstain from doing something; 2. That the contemnor knows what precisely he is expected to do or abstain from doing; and 3. It must be shown that he failed to comply with the terms of the judgment or order and that his disobedience is willful. See the case of Republic v Sito I; Ex parte Fordjour [2001-2002] SCGLR 322. Page 5 of 8 The defence of the Respondent in her affidavit in opposition are 1. She is not Mrs Quartey. 2. She did not take part in the proceedings that culminated into the Judgement of the court. Based on the elements of contempt, the issues for determination in this application are as follows: 1. Whether or not there is a judgment or order requiring the contemnor to do or abstain from doing something; 2. Whether or not the contemnor knows what precisely he is expected to do or abstain from doing; and 3. Whether or not it has been shown that the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the judgment or order and that his disobedience is willful. ISSUE ONE. The Applicant exhibited Judgement of the court dated 17th May, 2022 where the District Court amongst others ordered the Respondent herein to grant vacant possession of the property to the Plaintiff forthwith. I therefore hold that there is a judgement of the court requesting the Respondent to grant vacant possession to the Applicant herein. ISSUE TWO There is grant of writ of possession of the property in issue to the Applicant and there is evidence that the Deputy Sherriff levied execution against the Respondent. Respondent asserted that she was at home one day when officers from the District Court, Kaneshie came and forcibly threw her belongings out of her room on the grounds because of a purported execution of a judgement and orders of the court granted against her in a civil proceeding she did not partake in. Applicant stated that, Respondent left the house for some hours and returned to the house. I think there is abundant information that, the Respondent knows exactly that she is to vacate the house in issue. ISSUE THREE Page 6 of 8 The respondent admitted execution was levied on her. She failed to vacate the house. Her defences are that, firstly she is not Mrs. Quartey, secondly, she was not served with any notice of the writ that culminated into the judgement. Unfortunately, the execution was levied on the person in the property by the name that was on the writ. This execution was levied on her on 8th April, 2024. After the execution, she took no steps to set aside the judgement of the District Court. She attached a Judgement to her affidavit in opposition to prove that one Mr. Isaac Quartey litigated against the Applicant herein and won the case. I am unable to tell who this late Mr. Quartey was. The documents from the District Court showed that, the Applicant herein litigated against the Mrs. Quartey who was in Applicant’s house. Execution of the Judgement of the District Court was levied on the Respondent herein. I am of the view that, the contempt application was meant for the person before the court. Respondent chose to go back into the property in outer disrespect of the orders of the court. It is sad that the Respondent who is at an advanced age be convicted and either sentence to imprisonment or to pay a fine, but judicial sympathy is not a principle of law and justice must be served within the confines of the law. I think I have to do what the law requires me to do without favour or ill-will. Please see the case of Korboe v Amosa [2016] DLSC5618. Based on the affidavits and exhibits before the court, I am of the view that, the Applicant has proved all the elements of contempt against the Respondent. She is hereby convicted. Sentence: I have listened to the prayer of learned counsel for the contemnor, who should have prayed in mitigation and advise Respondent to purge herself of the contempt but rather chose to raise defence contrary to paragraph 4 of the affidavit in opposition filed by him on behalf of the contemnor. I have also taken judicial notice of her age. The contemnor is sentenced to pay a fine of 50 penalty units and in default two weeks’ imprisonment. (SGD) Page 7 of 8 H/L COMFORT KWASIWOR TASIAME (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) REFERENCE • Section 36(1) of the Courts Act, 1993(Act 459) • REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE LARYEA MENSAH [1998- 99] SCGLR 360 at page 368 • REPUBLIC v. BANK OF GHANA & 5 OTHERS EX PARTE BENJAMIN DUFFUOR (J4/34/2018 dated 6/6/2018) reported on ghalii.org as [2018] GHASC 37 • (See the case of REPUBLIC v. SITO I EX PARTE FORDJOUR [2001-2002] SCGLR 322). • REPUBLIC v. NII ACHIA II; EX PARTE JOSHUA NMAI ADDO [2015] 83 GMJ 13. • Comet Products UK Ltd v. Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 1 All E R 1141 at page 1143-1144, CA. • Please see also REPUBLIC v. NII ACHIA II; EX PARTE JOSHUA NMAI ADDO [2015] 83 GMJ 13. • Republic v Moffat; Ex parte Allotey [1971] 2 GLR 391, • Republic v Sito I; Ex parte Fordjour [2001-2002] SCGLR 322. • Korboe v Amosa [2016] DLSC5618 Page 8 of 8