Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. J4/34/2018 | Judgment delivered 6 June 2018
Introduction
This case asked whether a party may be liable for contempt even where no express court order has been violated, but their conduct has the effect of interfering with a pending case and undermining the authority of the court. The Supreme Court clarified the scope of contempt in Ghana, particularly where a party, while litigation is ongoing, acts in a way that deprives the court of the ability to determine the dispute before it.
Facts
Benjamin Duffour, a Deputy Manager of the Bank of Ghana, occupied staff accommodation under a licence granted by the Bank. When the Bank decided to redevelop the premises into a specialist hospital, all resident staff were instructed to move. Duffour refused and initiated proceedings in the High Court seeking declarations and an injunction to restrain eviction.
The High Court granted only one of his requests: an injunction restraining the Bank from taking disciplinary proceedings against him pending determination of the suit. The court refused to restrain the Bank from evicting him.
While the action remained pending, the Bank forcibly evicted Duffour and later summarily dismissed him from employment. Duffour applied to commit the Bank and its officers for contempt, but the High Court dismissed the application. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the Bank and its officers guilty of contempt but cautioned and discharged them. The matter came before the Supreme Court on further appeal and cross-appeal.
Issues for Determination
The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Bank’s dismissal of Duffour and its eviction of him, while litigation was ongoing, amounted to contempt of court.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Bank’s act of summarily dismissing Duffour was contemptuous, but its act of evicting him was not.
On the dismissal, the Court restated that contempt of court is not limited to disobedience of specific court orders. It may also arise where a party, with knowledge that a matter is sub judice (pending before a Court), takes steps that prejudice, pre-empt, or frustrate the court’s role in deciding the dispute. Although the Bank did not convene a disciplinary committee – the process expressly restrained by the court – it achieved the same objective by summarily dismissing Duffour. The evidence showed that the dismissal was tied to the same refusal to relocate, which was at the heart of the pending proceedings. In doing so, the Bank made “a mockery” of the court’s authority and effectively determined the dispute outside the courtroom. The Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the finding of contempt.
On the eviction, the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion. The High Court had declined to restrain the Bank from repossessing the premises. In the absence of such an order, there could be no intentional violation of a court directive. The Court noted that contempt may still arise even where no injunction exists, if the act itself undermines the court’s jurisdiction or renders the pending action pointless. However, on the facts, the Bank’s decision to recover the premises did not meet this threshold. The Court therefore set aside the Court of Appeal’s finding of contempt in relation to the eviction.
Implication of the Decision
This decision is now a leading authority on the modern scope of contempt in Ghana. It affirms that contempt protects not personal dignity but the integrity of the judicial process. Once a court is seized of a matter, a party must not act in a manner that effectively predetermines the outcome or reduces the court’s jurisdiction to a formality. At the same time, contempt remains a quasi-criminal process requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, and where no interference with the administration of justice can be shown, the courts will be slow to impose a sanction.
Significant Quote
“One of the main objectives of the offence of contempt of court is to protect the dignity of the court. The courts have been set up to ensure peaceful settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. It is in the general interest of members of the community that the authority vested in the courts to protect them is not trampled upon. Any act which therefore seeks to emasculate the authority of the courts should not be countenanced. The members of the community must at all times have confidence and hope in the authority of the courts to deliver justice. The concept of contempt of court is to prevent unjustified interference in the authority of the court. It is also designed to prevent any act which seeks to damage the dignity of the court. Contempt of court is not there to protect the dignity of any one individual person but the overall dignity of the justice delivery machinery.”
Commentary and Insight
The case makes clear that a litigant cannot defeat pending judicial proceedings by taking matters into their own hands. Duffour ultimately succeeded not because the Bank was wrong to discipline him in principle, but because the Bank acted in a way that bypassed, neutralised and embarrassed the authority of the court. The Supreme Court’s approach reinforces the principle that the courts, once seized of a dispute, must be allowed to determine it without being overtaken by the unilateral action of the parties.
