SG-SSB BANK BOSS CAUTIONEND AND DISCHARGED

AN Accra High Court has cautioned and discharged the Managing Director of the SG-SSB Bank Ltd, Mr Alain Bellisard, for contempt of court after he had purged himself of the court order.
Counsel for Mr Bellisard, Mr Brookman Amissah, surrendered the title deeds on a house at Lever Avenue in Sekondi in the Western Region to Mr Kwame Fosu-Gyeabour, counsel for Gbewaa Civil Engineering Ltd, something which the court had directed to be done but had not been done, resulting in Bellisard’s conviction for contempt.
The court had, on March 26, 2006, ordered the bank to surrender title deeds on the house but it failed to do that, following which Gbewaa Ltd applied to the court for an order to commit the bank, particularly its managing director, for contempt of court, which the court upheld.
The managing director was admitted to a self-recognisance bail in the sum of GH¢20,000 and given 14 days within which to purge himself.
Meanwhile, Mr Amissah informed the court that his client was aggrieved by its proceedings and had, therefore, petitioned the Chief Justice to transfer the case from the court.
Counsel said that notwithstanding, he had also filed for proceedings in the matter to be stayed, since the court was not prepared to hear an application for stay of execution, which was a right to the applicant.
According to counsel, he had three appeal applications pending, arguing that in the light of that the court ought to hear his application for stay of execution.
Counsel for Gbewaa Ltd indicated to the court that the contemnor was abusing the process of the court and for that matter could not ask for any remedy from the court.
He said the position had been that until the contemnor purged himself, he could not be heard and whatever documents had been filed by his counsel should be disregarded and sentenced.
That line of argument brought Mr Amissah to his feet. He argued that it was not the true position of the law and that he only drew the court's attention to the processes that had been filed and was prepared to abide by the court's opinion.
According to him, the contemnor had to obey the court's order, sue for a declaration to that effect or make an application to set aside the order, saying that until those steps had been taken, one had to obey the order.
In view of the court's position not to countenance any further application in respect of the matter, Mr Amissah rendered an apology to the court and surrendered the document without any prejudice.
Gbewaa Ltd contracted a loan from the SG-SSB Bank in 2002 and used the documents as collateral until the loan was repaid.
After that the bank took the applicants to court on the grounds that the company had not finished with the payment but the court, after going into the matter, ruled that the documents should be surrendered because the company was not indebted to the bank.
In its contempt application, Gbewaa Ltd said although when the court gave its order that the respondent bank should surrender the documents its managing director was not in court, counsel was present.
It said subsequently the order was served on the bank but it refused to comply with it.
The bank’s counsel opposed the contempt application because, according to him, it was misconceived and incompetent because the present managing director, a French national, had assumed office in Ghana at a time when the court order had long been given.
Furthermore, the respondent argued that the convict had not been served with the court order, the subject of contempt, and that by the date of service of the said processes on him the bank had long since filed an appeal against the order, while an application for stay of execution pending appeal against the order had been filed as far back as June 14, 2006.
The bank denied having committed any contempt of court in the circumstances.
However, the court ruled that the relevant evidence available was that on April 19, 2006 the order was delivered to the managing director’s office, whereupon his secretary directed the bailiff to serve the order on the Recovery Unit of the bank.
It said the managing director’s secretary understood the order and, therefore, directed the bailiff to the immediate relevant unit of the bank and that in the normal scheme of things, the Secretary at the Recovery Unit, Madam Beatrice Quarshie, had received the document as an official document for and on behalf of her employers, the bank.
The court ruled that it was immaterial that the present managing director was not in office at the time of service of the court order on the bank and that the fact of the matter was that he took office with all the responsibilities and duties attached to the office.
“It will be preposterous to think otherwise. The managing director in office is attachable, once it has been proved that the court’s order has been disobeyed by the respondent bank,” said the court.