CLELLAND vs. ALEXANDRA [1966]DLHC1670

Date	1966-11-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC1670

EDUSEI J.

QUIST FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

ACQUAAH FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1966]DLHC1670
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >CLELLAND <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ALEXANDRA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 758<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
24 NOVEMBER 1966.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

QUIST FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>In the
instant proceedings the plaintiff is asking the court to call upon the
defendant to show cause why she should not be committed to prison for contempt
of court.<o:p></o:p>On 10
January 1966, the court, on the application of the plaintiff, granted an
interim injunction in the following terms:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“It is
hereby ordered that the defendant herein, her servants, agents or workmen be
and are, hereby restrained from carrying on any work upon the parcel of land in
dispute and/or in connection with the building thereon while the rights and
entitlements of the parties herein still remain pending and undetermined.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Again on
25 May 1966 the court on the application of the defendant reviewed its order
and varied it to enable the defendant “to continue with the building to the
extent only that the said building may be saved from collapse or destruction by
having doors and windows put in and the septic tank and soak-away duly
completed.” I consider this to be the essential part of the order reviewed and
I need not refer to the whole order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the applicant has urged upon this court that as a result of the indulgence
granted her by the court the defendant did take advantage of it and completed
the building and got it ready for habitation, and has in fact let it out to a
tenant in the person of one Lamptey. In his opinion, counsel for the plaintiff
argued, this constitutes a violation of the court’s orders of 10 January 1966
and 25 May 1966.<o:p></o:p>Mr.
Acquaah, on the other hand, sought to show that there was no infringement of
either of the two orders. He argued that by the varied order of 25 May 1966
which gave the defendant power to do certain things to the building, the doing
of these things actually completed the building for habitation, and that the
letting out of the building to a tenant was no contravention of either order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
essential matter for me to decide is whether the defendant by renting the
building did violate either of the two orders. There is nothing before me to
ascertain the stage the building had reached when the court varied its order
and permitted the defendant to continue the building with a view to saving it
from collapse. It follows therefore that I cannot find against the defendant
that by putting in the windows and doors and constructing the septic tank and
soak-away, she did complete the building and therefore has violated the court’s
order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have,
however, to interpolate that actual service of a court’s order is not essential
on the party alleged to have disobeyed it if it is shown that the party knew or
might have known of the order: see United Telephone Co. v. Dale.1 The order of
10 January 1966 was served on the defendant on 27 January 1966, but she applied
for a review of the order on 25 May 1966, and as a result of the review
completed the house. She cannot be heard to say that she was not aware of the
contents of the order of 25 May 1966.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant in her affidavit has admitted that the building has been let out to a
tenant but alleged that the letting was done by her sister when she, the
de</main>