An Appeals Court on Thursday dismissed a criminal contempt action instituted by embattled businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome against Kweku Baako, Anthony Abaryifa-Karbo, Multimedia Group Ltd, Despite Group of Companies (Operators of Peace Fm/Peacefmonline) and Citi FM.
The three member panel presided over by Justice Kanyokeh threw out Mr Woyome’s suit after it largely agreed with the defendants’ objections and further awarded cost of GHc 6,000 against the plaintiff
Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Irene Danquah and Mrs Justice Margaret Welbourne.
The contempt application was about certain comments Karbo and Baako are alleged to have made on certain media platforms in relation to a suit against Woyome which was dismissed by the High Court and subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The contempt application cited the respondents variously for engaging in acts that was calculated to “prejudice the due administration of justice in general and in particular the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Republic Vrs Alfred Agbesi Woyome with suit number H2/17/15 delivered on the 10 of March 2016 …”
The businessman claimed that the comments “establish malice and lack of respect for the judgement and acquittal of the applicant (Woyome).”
Mr. Woyome, led by his lawyer David Annan, therefore dragged Karbo, Baako, the Despite Group, the Multimedia Group and Omni Media to the Court of Appeal, alleging that they had engaged in acts “that were designed to erode public confidence in the administration of justice, attack the authority of the court and the entire Judiciary”.
He claimed that the two individuals and the three media houses sought to incite public opinion against him after he had been acquitted by the court.
“Their comments were calculated to interfere with the course and delivery of justice by inciting judicial or public opinion against the applicant in the way he conducted his criminal case and to affect his assertion of his right in Republic Vrs Alfred Agbesi Woyome criminal case,’’ it said.
He had argued that the Multimedia Group was in contempt of Court by allowing the New Crusading Guide Editor-In-Chief to denigrate Woyome on its flagship news analysis programme, Newsfile.
The plaintiff (Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome), further averred that the conduct of Anthony Karbo, Kweku Baako, and the three media houses cited, to have aided and abetted them to make disparaging pronouncements before, during or after the determination of the judgment of the Court of Appeal was deliberately aimed at inciting public opinion against him (the plaintiff) and/or to impede the administration of justice, impair the authority of the judiciary or to erode public confidence in the administration of law and justice by the Court of Appeal.
The Plaintiff in his reliefs prayed the court to charge the Respondents guilty, and make them to purge themselves, apologize and retract and pay a fine and/or give security of good behavior, or they be committed into custody as the court may deem fit.
Mr. Woyome, who is battling the state over some 51.2 million cedis wrongfully paid to him, brought his case at the Court of Appeal.
OBJECTIONS
But lawyers for the respondents raised objections to the suit, arguing the Court of Appeal was not the proper forum to hear the matter.
The legal objections bordered on the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear the contempt application and whether the company (Despite) could be cited for contempt.
Counsel for Karbo and Baako, Mr Egbert Faibile, argued that the Court of Appeal was an appellate court and, therefore, no fresh application could be filed at the court.
He stated that the applicant (Woyome) should have initiated the process at the High Court, instead of the Court of Appeal.
“This court (Court of Appeal) has no original jurisdiction, unlike the Supreme Court that has original jurisdiction. The application should have been filed at the High Court before moving to the Court of Appeal,’’ he argued.
Counsel for the Despite Group, Mr Thaddeus Sory, on the other hand, argued that the application against the company was not legal, as a corporate entity could not be cited for contempt.
“The proper practice is to go against the directors of the company and not the corporate entity. In contempt matters, you don’t proceed against the corporate entity but rather against the directors. The application is woefully inadequate and should be dismissed,’’ he argued.
RESPONSE
Counsel for Woyome, Mr David Annan, on the other hand, argued that the application was about an act that scandalised and disrespected the judgement of the court.
“The Attorney-General transmitted the matter from the High Court to the Court of Appeal which was determined. Any argument that we have to file a notice of appeal is ill conceived,’’ he said.
RULING
In its ruling Thursday, the Court held that whilst it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, the case should have started at the High Court.
It also ruled that Contempt proceedings cannot be instituted against companies as Mr. Woyome and his lawyers sought to do.
Contempt is an offence against the person, the Court pointed out.
Therefore the contempt proceedings ought to have been instituted against the directors of the companies, instead of the companies as corporate institutions, the judges held.
The court, therefore, threw out the suit and awarded cost of GHc 6,000 against the plaintiff
It is unclear if Mr. Woyome will re-file his case.
<<Print>>