DIVISION: HIGH COURT, SEKONDI
DATE: 24 MAY 1965
BEFORE: DJABANOR J.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS APPLICATION for a writ of attachment for contempt of court.
COUNSEL
L. B. Akainyah for the applicant. C. A. Cann for the respondents.
JUDGMENT OF DJABANOR J.
This is an application by the applicant herein for a writ of attachment to issue against the respondents herein for contempt of the order of this court dated 13 April 1964. Upon the motion coming on for hearing Mr. Cann for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the application is improperly before the court in that the applicant’s papers are deficient in one particular, namely, that there is no statement filed in compliance with Order 59, r. 21 (1) of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954.1 This rule states that the application shall follow the procedure laid out in Order 59, rr. 2, 4, 5, and 6. Rules 2 (2) and 5 (1) are in the following terms: “2.(2) An application for such leave as afforesaid shall be made ex parte to the Court, except in vacation when it may be made to a Judge in chambers, and shall be accompanied by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought, and the grounds on which it is sought, and by
[p.406] of [1965] GLR 405
affidavits verifying the facts relied on. The Court or Judge may, in granting leave, impose such terms as to costs and as to giving security as it or he thinks fit.” “5.(1) Copies of the statement accompanying the application for leave shall be served with the notice of motion or summons, and copies of any affidavits accompanying the application for leave shall be supplied on demand and on payment of the proper charges, and no grounds shall, subject as hereafter in this rule provided, be relied upon or any relief sought at the hearing of the motion or summons except the grounds and relief set out in the said statement.” Mr. Cann contended that in the present instance the applicant cannot be heard at all as he has not stated the ground of his application in any statement. Mr. Akainyah in reply submitted that a statement is not necessary where there is a full affidavit attached to the application, and that a statement is necessary only if the facts are not within the knowledge of the applicant, and that the affidavit only repeated the facts in the statement. In my view both a statement and an affidavit must be filed as both are necessary and do not necessarily overlap. The statement states all the particulars requested in Order 59, r. 2 (2), and also the grounds on which the applicant relies for the application. In fact an affidavit which merely deposed that the facts alleged in the statement are true has been held to be insufficient. Examples in the standard works on court forms and precedents bear this out. In the circumstances I uphold the submission of the respondents’ counsel that the applicant cannot be heard. His application is therefore dismissed.
DECISION
Application dismissed
E. A.-A.
