The Court of Appeal yesterday set November 24, 2016 to deliver its judgement in the contempt of court application brought against Abdul Malik Kweku Baako Jnr., Editor-in-chief of the New Crusading Guide newspaper and three others by NDC businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome.

The court, presided over by Justice S.E. Kanyoke, set the date after it had ordered the parties in the suit to re-argue their case through written statements.

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 over the GH¢51 million judgement debt, which he owes the state.

But the businessman claimed that the comments “establish malice and lack of respect for the judgement and acquittal of the applicant (Woyome).”

Respondents

Others in the contempt suit are: Anthony Karbo, a former National Youth Organiser of the New Patriotic Party (NPP); Despite Group of Companies, operators of Peace FM; Multimedia Group Limited, operators of Joy FM and Omni Media Limited, operators of Citi FM.

It may be recalled that at the last sitting in July, counsel for Karbo and Baako, 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.

Thaddeus Sory, counsel for the Despite Group, stated that the application against the company was not legal because 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 contended.

Arguments

Having made some few responses, the court adjourned proceeding until yesterday to allow David Annan, lawyer for Woyome, to properly respond to the legal objections raised by the applicants.

However, the new panel’s position was that the arguments made by all the lawyers in the case in July must be made afresh by written statements, a position Mr. Annan vehemently opposed.

Shadrach Arhin, counsel for Multimedia, prayed the court to be included in the preliminary objections, but Woyome’s lawyer again opposed the application, compelling Shadrach to withdraw the application, saying he would associate himself to submissions of Egbert and Sory.

Written Response

The court nonetheless, has given the respondents seven days – from October 18 – to file their written submissions of the preliminary objections and to serve same on the counsel for Mr. Woyome.

Lawyer for the applicants also has seven days after service to also write his response before the court’s decision.

Other judges on the panel are Justices Sophia Amoah and Margaret Welbourne.