Ratio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio Decidendi



NOWFIL S. LABA
V.
WISSAN AID LABA AND LATEX FORM RUBBER PRODUCTS LIMITED EX-PARTE: EX PARTE NOWFILL LABA

(2016) JELR 63660 (HC)    
High Court  ·  SUIT NO.MISC/0064/2016 ·  13 Jul 2016 ·  Ghana
CORAM
HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

Ratio Decidendi

Core Terms Beta
order
rule
contempt
affidavit
application
contempt application
person
judgment
order of the court
high court
substantive application
rules
action of nowfill laba
alleged order of the court
case of any judgment
c. i.
civil procedure
committal proceedings
consideration of the court
constitutional provision
essential elements
ex parte allgate co. ltd
ex parte ameyaw ii
ex parte osahene katakyie busumakura
filing of the entry of the order
formidable questions of law
form of the filing of entry
further yoke
interlocutory application
old rules ln 140a
order of a court
personal knowledge
preliminary legal points raises
proven irregularity
second leg of his preliminary objection
second leg of the submission
service of the order of the court
substantive submissions
such order
support of the contempt application
terms of order
trilogy of applications
unreported decision of marful sau ja
view of the court of appeal
violation of an order of the court
weightier preliminary legal points of law
wood cj

RULING

BAFFOUR J.

The third in the trilogy of applications for committal for contempt has been bedevilled with two weightier preliminary legal points of law by Sory, Esq. The net effect of the two legal objections raised is for the action of Nowfill Laba citing the five respondents for contempt to be dismissed in limini without even the benefit of hearing the substantive submissions for the committal proceedings.

The first ground of the legal objection is that the application for contempt is incompetent in so far as the affidavit in support of the contempt application is irregular. Counsel contends that the contempt application launched under Order 50 of the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules, C. I 47 is not an interlocutory application but a substantive one and as long as it is a substantive application, the deponent of such an application must be the applicant who may depose to matters within his personal knowledge, information and belief. This he contends that rule 8 of Order 20 of C.…

There's more. Sign in to continue reading.

judy.legal is the comprehensive database of case law and legislation from Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Gain seamless access to over 20,000 cases, recent judgments, statutes, and rules of court.

Get started   Login