REPUBLIC VRS. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND OTHERS, EX-PARTE: ANNAN (CR/0377/2024) [2024] GHAHC 440 (19 August 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL COURT 4, HELD IN ACCRA ON MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP, COMFORT KWASIWOR TASIAME, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT. CASE NO.: CR/0377/2024 THE REPUBLIC VRS. 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - RESPONDENTS 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL 3. THE DIRECTOR EX-PARTE: REV. ROBERT ANNAN - APPLICANT PARTIES: APPLICANT – PRESENT 3RD RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY SUPT. ALEX KWASI KWARTENG AND ALSO REPRESENTS 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS __________________________________________________________________ RULING This is an application brought for and on behalf of the Applicant seeking for an order committing the Respondent to prison for allegedly willfully, deliberately and intentionally 1 | P age disobeying/ignoring the order of a District Court. Attached to the application is an affidavit in support of the motion. Kindly permit me to quote relevant portions of the affidavit in support. 5. That applicant caused his lawyers to commence an action against the Respondents for the release of unregistered Honda, CR-V S/WAGON 2020 vehicle with chassis NO>2HKRW2H44LH222220. 7. …The application was moved and the Respondents neither filed an affidavit in opposition nor opposed the application on point of law but stated that they were not opposed to the application. 8. … ordered that the vehicle be released to the Applicant. That the order for the release of the vehicle was duly served on the Respondents. 13. That the Applicant followed up on the release order with his counsel at the Ghana Police Headquarters, Cantonment but same has been met with obstruction and a clear statement that they are not going to release the car to the Applicant. Respondents filed an affidavit in opposition. Permit me to quote relevant portions of the affidavit in opposition. 5. That the facts of the Applicant’s motion and affidavit in support are not the same facts which led to the impoundment of the said vehicle and thus, on the merits of the case, the said vehicle ought not to be released to the Applicant who is the third complainant of a case of defrauding by false pretense which was reported at the Auto Theft Unit of Ghana Police Service. 21. That there is pending application to set aside the release order at the District Court, Achimota of which Counsel for the Applicant has refused to be served by informing the bailiff that he is no longer the lawyer for the Applicant herein. 2 | P age 22. That the behavior of the Respondent is not in any way an affront to the powers of this Honourable Court. 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. 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.” 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. In the case of In Re Effiduase Stool Affairs (No. 2); Republic v Numapau, President of the National House of Chiefs and others; Ex parte Ameyaw II (No. 2) [1998- 99] SCGLR 639, in holding 1, the court held as follows: “ (1) Per Acquah JSC, Sophia Akuffo JSC concurring: contempt of court was constituted by any act or conduct that tended to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard or to interfere with, or prejudice parties, litigants, or their witnesses 3 | P age in respect of pending proceedings. And contempt of court might be classified either as direct and indirect or civil and criminal. Direct contempts were 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 contempts were those arising from matters not occurring in or near the presence of the court, but which tended to obstruct or defeat the administration of justice, such as 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 were those quasi-contempts consisting in failure to do something which the party was ordered by the court to do for the benefit or advantage of another party to pending proceedings, while criminal contempts were acts done in respect of the court or its process or which obstructed the administration of justice or tended to bring the court into disrespect.” 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 proof of direct contempt seems not to be as burdensome as proof of indirect contempt. In most cases of direct contempt such as insulting the judge or a party to a proceeding, or committing acts of violence in court, the judge has the advantage of having a firsthand view of the act constituting contempt. The opposite can be said of indirect contempt where the court will have to rely on the testimony of third parties to prove the offense of contempt. 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: 4 | P age "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 view that contempt of court requires proof beyond reasonable doubt was rehashed in the case of Akele v Coffie and Another and Akele v Okine and Anor (Consolidated) [1979] GLR 84-90. It was held that: “In order to establish contempt of court even when it was not criminal contempt but civil contempt, there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that a contempt of court had indeed been committed” 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 5 | P age 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. In that case, His lordship T.K. ADZOE stated as follows: “The type of contempt charged against the Appellant involves willful disobedience to the judgment or order, or other process of a Court; it must import a demand to do or abstain from doing something. A refusal to comply with that demand of the Court is what constitutes the offence of contempt which the Courts consider as an obstruction to the fair administration of justice and also as an affront to the dignity of the Court. The offence interferes with the administration of justice because it in effect denies a party his right to enjoy the benefits of the judgment or order; it is an affront to the dignity of the Court in this sense that it is viewed as an act deliberately contrived to undermine the authority of, and respect for, the Court. And the law treats it as a quasi-criminal offence to vindicate the cause of justice. Some degree of fault or misconduct must be established against the contemnor to show that his disobedience was willful.” The issues for determination are; 1. Whether or not there is a Judgement or order requiring the Respondent to do or abstain from doing something. 2. Whether or not the Respondent knows what precisely he is expected to do or abstain from doing; and 3. Whether or not the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the judgment or order and that his disobedience is willful. ISSUE ONE 6 | P age The Applicant exhibited the order for the Release of the Vehicle in issue to the application. The order indicates that, the prosecutor INSPECTOR S. ADU BAAH was present when the application for the release of the vehicle was made and the court ordered as follows that “It is hereby ordered that the Unregistered Honda CR-V S/WAGON 2020 Vehicle with chassis number 2HKRW2H44LH222220 be released to Rev. Robert Annan, the Applicant forthwith”. I therefore hold that, there was an order given by the District Court, Achimota. The order required the Respondents to release the vehicle in issue to the Applicant herein. ISSUE TWO AND THREE I hold that the Respondent knows what exactly they are supposed to do. In paragraph 7 of the Respondent’s affidavit in opposition, they stated that “The facts that led to impounding of the said vehicle by the police are that three persons namely Edwin Akwasi Oppong, Ismael Shandorf and Mawulolo Ametame reported cases of defrauding by false pretense on 14th day of June, 2022, 11th day of July, 2022 and 8th December, 2022 respectively. 8. … That after above reports, Applicant on 20th day of December, 2022, reported being defrauded which is still under investigation. In paragraph 20 of the affidavit in opposition, Respondents deposed to the fact that it will be unjust and unfair for the vehicle to be released to the Applicant who was the 3rd complainant of the criminal report filed at the auto theft unit. Respondents are aware of the order, their representative was in court when the order was delivered, they did not oppose the application, when the order was drawn and as stated by the Applicant at paragraph 13 of their affidavit in support, that the Respondents rather than complying with the order subsequently filed an application to set aside the order on 29th May, 2024. That the Application was opposed and struck out by the learned Magistrate. 7 | P age Until Judgement of a competent court of Jurisdiction set aside, same is valid and must be obeyed. Please see the case of DANIEL OFORI VRS ECOBANK GHANA LTD AND OTHERS, CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/54/2021. Respondents failed to comply with the order of the court. Their failure is intentional because the reasons of their failure as stated that there are three persons involved in the case is not convincing and good defence. I said so because, three complainants are allegedly claiming one car, the applicant herein went to court for the release of the vehicle to him. Police being aware that three persons are claiming the car did not oppose the application. The other claimants did not file anything before the court for the release of the vehicle to any one of them. I think this defence to the application is not well grounded in law. Failure of the Respondents to comply with the order of the court is willful. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Respondents are just public officers doing their work. I am of the view that there is nothing wrong in seeking a relief against a public official to compel him/her to carry out a court order. They are therefore held liable in contempt of court. From the arguments and submissions, I am of the view that the Respondents are not remorseful for their acts of failure to obey the order of the court. They are each sentenced to 500 penalty units each to pay within a week, in default one week imprisonment. (SGD) COMFORT KWASIWOR TASIAME (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) COUNSEL: 1. FRANCISCA ESINAM ADABLA HOLDING BRIEF FOR CHRIS BAFFOUR AWUAH FOR THE APPLICANT 8 | P age 2. ANGEL LOLO FOR THE RESPONDENTS REFERENCE: ▪ 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. ▪ REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE LARYEA MENSAH [1998-99] SCGLR 360 ▪ In Re Effiduase Stool Affairs (No. 2); Republic v Numapau, President of the National House of Chiefs and others; Ex parte Ameyaw II (No. 2) [1998-99] SCGLR 639 ▪ Comet Products UK Ltd v. Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 1 All E R 1141 at page 1143- 1144, CA ▪ Akele v Coffie and Another and Akele v Okine and Anor (Consolidated) [1979] GLR 84-90 ▪ Republic v Moffat; Ex parte Allotey [1971] 2 GLR 391 ▪ Republic v Sito I; Ex parte Fordjour [2001-2002] SCGLR 322. ▪ DANIEL OFORI VRS ECOBANK GHANA LTD AND OTHERS, CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/54/2021. 9 | P age