The High Court in Accra has slapped a cost of 3,000 cedis on businessman Theophilus Teiko Tagoe after dismissing his request for the opportunity to file more documents in a Contempt case against the current Inspector General of Police, Christian Tetteh Yohuno and two others.
The Applicant through his lawyers prayed the Court for an opportunity to file further evidence to respond to the IGP Yohuno and the two officers’ affidavit in opposition to his statement of claims.
COP Yohuno, a Deputy Inspector General of Police at the time the Contempt case was filed (now IGP) together with ASP. Alhassan Malaika Jibril and Supt. Bawa Alhassan for have been hauled before the Court for Contempt in an alleged land dispute at Adjiringhanor.
Argument for motion
Tetteh Josiah who held brief for his senior Osafo Buabeng while moving the application acknowledged that, “I have been served with affidavit in opposition to the instant application.”
In his brief response to the affidavit in opposition (filed by lawyers of the Respondents) is that there has been instances that the court have granted leave to applicants in the contempt application to file supplementary affidavit.
“I will humbly appeal to the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant herein by granting them the leave to file the supplementary affidavit,” Counsel urged the Court.
Opposition
Abu Juan, Counsel who was holding brief for Thaddeus Sory for the Respondents vehemently opposed to the request from the Applicant.
Counsel argued that, the only ground stated for the grant of the application is that the affidavit ni opposition to the contempt application raises some matters that a supplementary affidavit will need to be filed to respond to same.
“The first point here is that every affidavit in opposition will raise matters one way or the other and if the court were to allow supplementary affidavit to be filed anytime an affidavit in opposition raises a matter, litigation will never come to an end because even in the supplementary matters will be raised which may require another leave for the filing of another supplementary,” Counsel submitted.
It was the submission of Counsel that, “We will be turning the sacred processes of this court into a table tennis game.”
“It is trite and counsel (for Applicants) has considered same that the filing of a supplementary affidavit is not out of right for which reason a party seeking to file a supplementary affidavit will have to seek leave of the court.
“The settled practice is for the party to atleast state the basis or the exact reason for which the party should be allowed to file this supplementary affidavit.
“In the instant case, no such reason was given by the applicant apart from the general reason that the affidavit ni opposition raises matters,” Counsel argued.
No penal notice
To buttress his points, Counsel submitted that, “we are dealing with a quasi-criminal matter in which the applicant has come to complain about the conduct of a party and that complaint is contained in the affidavit in support for which the party claims that the respondents are in contempt of this court.
“The parties now file an affidavit in opposition defending themselves and making it clear that they have not acted in the manner complained about.
“Then the applicant comes before this court to say that please allow me to go and get further evidence. In every affidavit filed, it will always be about factual matters and those factual matters one way or the other will require some evidence to be attached.
“In any case, in arguing the application, the applicant did indicate to this court that the respondent had complained about the penal notice meaning he was now going to attach the penal notice.
“The basis for the application as I indicated earlier was that there are matters that have been raised in the affidavit in opposition to the contempt application.
In arguing the application, Counsel further stated that, “the applicant did asked that he be allowed to see the affdavit in opposition in order to respond to it for which reason we took an adjournment.”
“He was served with the affidavit in opposition and he responded to the contents of it. That is the settled practice and even in civil matters where theliberty of a man is not at stake, parties respond to this affidavit during the hearing of the application.
“It is only in situations where the evidence or the fact to be contained in a supplementary affidavit were not available to the applicant at thetime of his filing his application and even then there are other requirements that need to be satisfied before the court will allow the filing of such a supplementary affidavit.
“Requirements such as the applicant having conducted a diligent search and did not get the fact or the evidence at the time of filing the application,” Counsel stated before praying the Court to dismiss the request to pave way for the hearing of the substantive matter for Contempt.
Dismissed, costs
Justice David K. A Boafo, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge dismissed the application and awarded a cost of 3,000 cedis against the Applicant.
“A look at the affidavit in opposition to the contempt application shows the respondent giving a direct response to the allegation made in the contempt application.
“The respondent did not raise any new matters for which the applicant should respond,” and “This court is of the view that contempt being a quasi-criminal matter beholds the applicant to ensure that all matters, facts, evidence requires for the application be put before the court in the motion itself and not via a supplementary affidavit in response.
“The applicant in moving this application has not shown any exceptional circumstances or special reason for which this court should exercise its discretion to grant them leave to file a supplementary affidavit.
The Court said the application is dismissed and a Costs of 3,000.00 cedis is awarded in favour of the Respondents.
The substantive case has been adjourned to May 2, 2025 at 12noon for hearing.
Source: starronline.com
