HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA
Date: 30 JULY 1975
APATU-PLANGE AG J
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
RULLING on a preliminary objection to an application for an order for leave to issue a writ of attachment for contempt of court by his honour Judge Appatu-Plange acting as a judge of the High Court.
COUNSEL
Djabatey for the applicants.
W. K. Ansah-Otu, Senior State Attorney, for the respondent.
JUDGMENT OF APATU-PLANGE AG. J.
This is an application for an order for a writ of attachment of Mr. E. K. Banning, superintendent of police for contempt of court. Before the hearing, counsel for the respondent took a preliminary objection to the application on the grounds that it did not comply with the requirement of Order 59, r. 3 (3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A). Now this order reads as follows:
“The applicant shall give notice of the application for leave not later than the preceding day to the Registry and shall at the same time lodge in the said Registry copies of the statement and affidavits.”
[p.224] of [1975] 2 GLR 223
Now did the applicant give the said day’s notice to the registry of the application for the leave being sought? Looking at the application and its accompanying statement and affidavit, they were all filed on 21 July 1975 at 8.30 a.m. It was clear then that no such notice was given. Counsel for the applicants however in his reply submitted that the said leave which he had to obtain before coming to court and for which a complaint is being made was even not necessary having regard to the nature of the contempt complained of. In support of his submission he referred the court to Order 59, r. 21 (2) (b) of L.N. 140A. This provides as follows:
“(2) This rule applies to cases where the contempt is committed—. . .
(b) in connection with any proceedings in Court, except where the contempt is committed in facie curiae or consists of disobedience to an order of the Court.”
The contempt being complained of clearly consists of the disobedience to an order of this court, and that being the case, Order 59, r. 21(2) (b) of L.N. 140A makes it unnecessary for the applicant complaining of the said contempt to first obtain leave. I am in entire agreement with the interpretation placed an order 59, r.21(2)(b) by counsel for the applicants, and I hold that the alleged irregularity committed in the course of obtaining the said leave cannot therefore affect the present proceedings. Consequently the application before this court is proper and the objection taken by counsel for the respondent is hereby overruled.
The learned senior state attorney also invited the court not to entertain this action in view of the indemnity Decree, 1973 (N.R.C.D. 227). Section 2 of this Decree reads as follows:
“No court shall entertain any action in any civil proceedings against the Republic, the National Redemption Council, the Executive Council, any member of the Armed Forces or of the Police Service, or any other person, in respect of any act or omission done or purported to be done in good faith in pursuance of any Decree of the National Redemption Council or any other enactment.”
It seems to me that this indemnity can only apply where the court is satisfied that the act or omission complained of was done in good faith. The respondent therefore must establish good faith before he can seek protection under the said Decree 227. Whether or not the respondent acted in good faith is a matter for the court and until that is determined it will be premature for him to say that this action should not be entertained on that ground. Proceedings to continue.
DECISION
Objection overruled.
S. E. K.
