“The power to commit is not retained for the personal aggrandisement of a judge or whoever mans the court; the powers are created, maintained and retained for the purpose of preserving the honour and the dignity of the court and so the Judge holds the power on behalf of the court and by the tradition of his office he should eschew any type of temperamental outburst as would let him lose his own control of the situation and his own appreciation of the correct method of procedure. in Boyo v. Attorney-General of the Mid-West State, supra, at page 352, this Court observes on a similar point as follows: “Whether the contempt is in the face of the court or not in the face of the court, it is important that it should be borne in mind by judges that the court should use its summary powers to punish for contempt sparingly.” It is important to emphasize the fact that judges should not display undue degree of sensitiveness about this matter of contempt and that they must act with restraint on these occasions. We are far from satisfied that in the present case the learned trial judge was able to claim that he acted without undue sensitiveness and that he maintained throughout a correct sense of judicial balance. Per G. B. A. COKER, J.S.C. in A.U. DEDUWA & ORS V. THE STATE (1975-LCER-978-SC) atP. 15, Paras. B – D.