Crime

Dome New Market chairman fined GH¢10, 000 for contempt

The Chairman of the Oversight Committee of the Dome New Market has been sentenced to a fine of GH¢10, 000 for contempt of court.

Ms Felicia Amui would in default serve three months in prison, and the court also awarded cost of GH¢10, 000 against Ms Amui, who is a respondent in a contempt case.

In February, 2019, the Accra High Court delivered judgment against the Ga East Municipal Assembly for revoking the arrangement of two shops at the Dome New Market, allocated to the Dome Market Queen.

The court also declared as illegal the attempt by Ms Amui to stop the leadership of the Dome Market Association from collecting fees from members.

In spite of the judgment, the Ga East Assembly went ahead to install Ms Amui as Market Queen, even though the applicant already had an occupant for that position.

Justice Eric Baah, a Court of Appeal Judge, sitting with additional responsibility as a high court judge, passing judgment said that the establishment of the Management Dome Market Committee, after the high court disbanded the Oversight Committee, was done in violation of the court’s judgment and orders, and that it was aimed to undermine the existence of the applicant and its activities.

But the respondent has argued that she could not be held for contempt because she had never been a party to any suit, and denied being the Chairperson of the disbanded oversight committee.

In his written address, counsel for the applicant, Daniel Adjei, who held brief for F.K Yeboah, said the Ga East Assembly was served with the first judgment of the court.

According to him, the contemnor was in court when the judgment was read and was also aware that copies of the judgment were displayed at all parts of the market.

In spite of that, Mr Adjei stated that Ms Amui had continued as chairperson of the disbanded oversight committee, now named ‘Management Dome Market Committee’.

He submitted that respondent’s non-party status to the suit in which the judgment was obtained was irrelevant, if it was established that she had knowledge of the judgment, as applicant believed in this case.

BY VIVIAN ARTHUR

Show More
Back to top button