LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Contempt of Court — Disobedience to Orders — Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Disobedience to a court order is contempt; the court has a duty to commit the individual for deliberate failure to carry out the order, as allowing disobedience would lead to anarchy.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Wali, JSC, in Hart v. Hart (1990) NLC-521983(SC) at pp. 17–18; Paras D–A.
"It is contempt to disobey a judgment or order for the giving up of possession of land and such order can be enforced by means of committal. Where an individual is enjoined by an order of the court to do or to refrain from doing a particular act, he has a duty to carry out that order. The court has a duty to commit that individual for contempt of its orders where he deliberately fails to carry out such orders. As O'Leary, J. (a Canadian Judge) put it: 'To allow court orders to be disobeyed would be to tread the road toward anarchy. If orders of the court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn... Loss of respect for the courts will quickly result into the destruction of our society.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Disobedience to a court order constitutes contempt. The court has both the power and duty to commit the contemnor for deliberate non-compliance. The principle is essential for the rule of law. Court orders must be obeyed; otherwise, anarchy results. The contemnor’s motive is irrelevant—deliberate disobedience suffices. The remedy of committal is coercive, not punitive, in civil contempt. The court may also impose fines or other sanctions. The principle applies to all court orders, not just injunctions. The contemnor cannot excuse disobedience by claiming the order was wrong—the proper remedy is appeal. Respect for court orders is fundamental to society.
