REPUBLIC VRS BAYOR & 2 OTHERS (UW/WA/HC/E11/03/2024) [2024] GHAHC 344 (18 July 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT WA ON THURSDAY 18TH JULY 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE A. YUSIF ASIBEY HIGH COURT JUDGE SUIT NO UW/WA/HC/E11/03/2024 IN THE MATTER OF:- THE REPUBLIC VRS 1. CHIARAA BAYOR 2. JALADEEN DANYU BANYERAA RESPONDENTS 3. CHARLES PUOUZUING EX PARTE: 1. ISHAK GARIBA DAPILAH 2. SAMPSON BAYOR APPLICANTS JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 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. This Judgement is premised on an application at the instance of the Applicants herein, praying for an order committing the Respondents herein for contempt of the Judicial Committee of the Upper West Regional House of 1 | P a ge Chiefs, for interfering with their witness, Gregory Dakurah. The Application was filed on 7th December, 2023. The Respondents each filed an Affidavit in Opposition on 11th January, 2024 after which a supplementary affidavit in support of the motion was filed on 26th January,2024. BACKGROUND The facts as gleaned from the processes filed are as follows; According to the Applicants, they filed a petition before the Judicial Committee of the Upper West Regional House of Chiefs on 28th November, 2023. The petition was attached as Exhibit SB “A” which was duly served on the 1st Respondent. Subsequent to the said petition, the Applicants filed a motion for interlocutory injunction on the same day which they allege was served on the 1st Respondent (Exhibit SB “B”). According to the Applicants one of the witnesses they intended to call is one Gregory Dakurah. Applicants claim that Gregory Dakurah informed them that on 3rd December, 2023 the Respondents came to his house at Jirapa to exert pressure and undue influence on him to enskin the 2nd Respondent as Nadowli Naa. Gregory Dakurah however allegedly resisted said pressure and undue influence on the basis that a petition has been filed and further that he had been named as one of the witnesses for the petitioners. In view of the above, the Applicants pray this court for the following remedies; 1. An order for committal against the Respondents herein into prison for the contemptuous act of interfering with a witness namely Gregory Dakurah. 2. An order that as part of the process of purging themselves of the contempt, Respondents be made to write a letter of apology to the Upper West Region House of Chiefs. 2 | P a ge 3. An order for the Applicant to recover costs from the Respondents in respect of the present application as part of the steps of purging themselves of the contempt 4. Any other order(s) or relief(s) the Honourable Court deems fit that will meet the demands of justice. In the Affidavit in Opposition, deposed to by the 2nd Respondent, he denies attending the meeting of 3rd December, 2023 and further denies service of the petition or the motion for interlocutory injunction on him. The 3rd Respondent also denies service of the processes. The 1st and 3rd Respondent who do not deny attending the meeting claim that the meeting was to discuss the outcome of the judgment of the National House of Chiefs dated 24th November, 2023 and not to exert pressure on the said Gregory Dakurah to proceed with the instalment of the 2nd Respondent. BURDEN OF PROOF This Court will now consider the burden of proof applicable in the instant matter. Under Section 39(2) of the Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) the National House of chiefs, Regional Houses of chiefs and every Traditional Council is established as a lower court/tribunal to adjudicate over any cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. Anything done in relation to the exercise of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs or Regional House of Chiefs which if done in relation to the High Court constitutes contempt, is contempt of that house. (See the Book Civil Procedure by S. Kwami Tetteh at page 611. Also see Section 33(7) of the Chieftaincy Act 2008 (Act 759). Committal for contempt of a chieftaincy trial is upon application to the High Court. In the case of Mayor Agbleze v the Attorney General and the Electoral Commission; The Republic v Gloria Akuffo and Others; Ex parte Mayor Agbleze Writ No J1/28/2018 decided on 24th October, 2018, the Supreme Court noted as follows; One of the main 3 | P a ge objectives of the offence of contempt of court is to protect the dignity of the court and the justice delivery machinery. The concept of contempt of court is to prevent unjustified interference in the authority of the court. There are two types of contempt; (a) where a party willfully disobeys an order or judgment of a court, and (b) 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….. However applying to the courts to have someone committed for contempt is not a trivial matter as contempt of court whether in civil or criminal matters invariably results in a conviction with imprisonment or a fine if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent is guilty of contempt. Also, In Re: Effiduase Stool Affairs (No.2) Republic vrs. Numapau, President of the National House of Chiefs and others Ex-parte Ameyaw 11 (No.2) [1998-99] SCGLR 639 the Supreme Court stated as follows: “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 out a prima facie case of contempt before the court could consider the defences put upon by the respondents” In view of the above decisions, the burden on the Applicants herein is a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Applicants must make out a prima facie case of contempt against the Respondents before their defence shall be considered. SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS AND RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Applicants’ argument can be summarized as follows; • Per the case of Ransford Opoku v Libherr Frans SAS [2012] 1 SCGLR 159 at 162, interfering with a witness amounts to contempt. In this case, actual service of the relevant process is not required. • The Respondents were aware of the pending petition and still insisted that certain persons be made Nadowli Naa. Counsel relied on the case of Republic v Moffat and Others Ex parte Allotey [1971] 2GLR 391 4 | P a ge • Gregory Dakurah is mentioned as a person the petitioners intended to call as a witness and yet the Respondents did not deny visiting him in his home at Jirapa. Counsel for Respondents’ argument can be surmarised as follows; • Applicants have not demonstrated prima facie that the Respondents are in contempt • Applicants have failed to show by positive means that the Respondents were aware of the petition. • Applicants have failed to demonstrate that Gregory Dakurah is a sworn witness in the petition. • Applicants have failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT The Court begins its analysis with the Supreme Court case of Republic v. Mensa-Bonsu and Others; Exparte Attorney-General (1995-1996) 1 GLR 377 at 403 as follows: “There are different forms of contempt. Underlying all of them, however, is one basic notion, that the roadways and highways of public justice should at all times be free from obstruction. Conduct which tends to create such an obstruction constitutes contempt. Thus, interfering with witnesses or jurors; frightening off parties to litigation; refusing to answer questions in court; commenting on pending proceedings in such a manner as to prejudice the outcome; running down the courts and the judges; refusing to obey an order of the court – any of these, if calculated to, or tend to, impede or obstruct the course of justice will constitute contempt. And conduct complained of therefore must be viewed and assessed against the backdrop of this basic principle.” From the above, the duty of the Applicants herein is to prove the following; 5 | P a ge a. That Gregory Dakurah was a witness before the Judicial Committee of the Upper West Regional House of Chiefs as at 3rd December, 2023 b. That the respondents interfered with Gregory Dakurah as a witness on 3rd December, 2023 c. The interference was calculated to obstruct the course of justice or actually obstructed the course of justice. In determining whether Gregory Dakurah is a witness the Court refers to the 9th Edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary which defines a witness in this context as One who gives testimony under oath or affirmation (1) in person (2) by oral or written deposition, or (3) by affidavit. In the instant case, the Court finds no assertion by the applicants that Gregory Dakurah, as at 3rd December, 2023 was a witness within the context of the definition of a witness. The fact that he was a proposed witness at the time does not automatically make him a witness in the matter because there is no demonstration that he is giving testimony under oath or affirmation before the Judicial Committee of the Upper West Regional House of Chiefs. Thus, in the opinion of this court, Gregory Dakurah as at 3rd December 2023 when the alleged meeting happened was not a witness. Assuming without accepting that Gregory Dakurah was a witness, is there proof that the Respondents interfered with him? The 9th Edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary defines interference as obstruction or hinderance. Can the meeting of 3rd December, 2023 be considered a hinderance or obstruction to Gregory Dakurah in any way? The Court does not think so. Gregory Dakurah in his Affidavit in Support projects himself as one who cannot even be interfered with. (See paragraphs 11 and 12 of his Affidavit in Support.) Furthermore, his allegations do not indicate that the meeting coerced him on any matter concerning the testimony he was giving in the petition. The Court does not find that Gregory Dakurah was interfered with as a witness. 6 | P a ge In the absence of a witness and proof of interference with that witness, it is impossible to insist that the Respondent’s herein in meeting with Gregory Dakurah on 3rd December 2023 conducted themselves in a manner that was calculated to obstruct justice or that actually obstructed justice. This Court notes that there is no authority which requires that private discussions of persons on pending court processes should warrant their committal for contempt. DECISION OF THE COURT In view of the above, the Court finds that the Applicants have failed to establish a prima facie case against the Respondents because; a. There is no proof that Gregory Dakurah as at 3rd December, 2023 was a witness in the petition before the Judicial Committee of the Upper West Regional House of Chiefs; b. There is no demonstration that the Respondents hindered or obstructed Gregory Dakurah as a witness in the petition before the Judicial Committee of the Upper West Regional House of Chiefs. Thus, the Respondents cannot be committed for contempt. In this decision, the Court has made no comments on the issue of proof of service on the Respondents, because the basic elements for the grant of the instant application have not even been met to warrant a consideration of whether or not service was essential in this case. 7 | P a ge CONCLUSION The application to commit the Respondents for contempt is without merit and therefore dismissed. COST Cost is hereby waived by Respondents. (SGD) JUSTICE YUSIF A. ASIBEY JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT COUNSEL CLEMENT ELEDI ESQ FOR APPLICANTS CRISPIN ZIEKAH ESQ FOR RESPONDENTS 8 | P a ge