A SEKONDI High Court presided over by Justice G.K. Gyan Tandoh has dismissed a contempt case brought against the Chairman of the Christian Divine Church (CDC), Apostle Ebenezer K. Boahene and four others.
The contempt application was initiated by Rosina Aryee and Kwame Bedu-Andor, as applicants, praying the High Court to commit the Defendants to prison for contempt.
The respondents were Apostle Ebenezer Boahene (1st accused), Augustus Agyeman Achina (2nd), John Brown (3rd), Samuel Awuah (4th) and Kwame Nkrumah (5th).
Both parties (the applicants and respondents), are all members of the Christian Divine Church.
APPLICANTS’ CASE
It was the case of applicants that,there was an order for interlocutory injunction in suit No:E12/3/2022 in which the church and its agents, including 1st and 2nd Defendants, were restrained from activities that impugn on the administration of the church, especially the holding of any elections of one form or another, until the final determination of the suit, which the respondents have flouted.
Applicants contended that in suit No: G1/0428/2022, 1st applicant sued 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants for the declaration that the tenure of office of Defendants as Chairman and deputy chairman respectively, expired on 28th January, 2022.
An order directed at 1st and 2nd Defendants to cease carrying themselves and performing any functions as chairman and deputy chairman respectively.
A further order directed at 1st and 2nd Defendants to hand over all the church properties in their custody to the church, and for 1st Defendant to vacate the church property where he resides.
Applicants argued that these injunctions pending with parties have been duly served. But in spite of the pending application, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants disregarded same and went ahead to make appointments, including the appointments of Counsel, in disregard of the pending case and in contravention with the constitution of the church.
Applicants further contended that, Defendants also committed contempt by preventing a bailiff from serving them court processes and thus, proceeded to hold meetings on church elections, unilaterally dissolving the trusteeship of the church, the Executive Council, the Pastoral Council all in contravention of the constitution.
DEFENDANTS CASE
Defendants,however, denied all the averments by the applicants. They contended that the application has been brought in bad faith, averring that 1st Defendant was neither a Trustee nor Executive Director of the church.
They held that various actions have been mounted against 1st Defendant and same dismissed by the Court, including Suit No:E12/103/2019 and No:E12/3/2021.
1st Defendant averred that whilst the Tarkwa suit was pending, an injunction was placed on them to fill a lacuna in the administration of the church’s activities, a committee was later formed with order of the High Court at Tarkwa as an interim measure for the church.
He contended that pursuant to the order of the High Court in appointing a three member committee for the church as an interim measure, he, in that capacity, wrote to all churches in an effort to hold elections, as per the constitution of the church.
COURT DECIDES
After listening to all the arguments, Justice G.K. Gyan Tandoh dismissed the application on grounds of being brought in bad faith.
He explained that from the records, there was an order of interlocutory injunction in suit No: E12/3/22 restraining affected persons and the church from activities that impugn on the administration of the church, especially the holding of any elections, one form or the other, until the final determination of the suit.
That apart, there was also another injunction application pending before the court in suit No: GI/0428/2022 also involving some of the officers in the church including 1st and 2nd Defendants.
The judge wrote that from the records, apart from 1st and 2nd defendants, who were directly involved as parties in suit No:G1/0428/2022, from which the injunction application was still pending, all other parties have been brought and woven into this application as agents of the church who have, according to the applicants, flouted the courts orders and/or are acting, in spite of pending injunction applications before the courts.
“Indeed, I find the action as brought in bad faith. The application ought to fail in the circumstances as the applicants were not able to discharge the burden as required by law to prove the guilt of the defendants. The application is dismissed,” the court ruled.
