NENE DUGBARTEY TETTEYGA II AND OTHERS vs. SAPPOR [1973]DLCA2331

Date	1973-07-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2331

AZU CRABBE C.J

SOWAH JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.

A. A. AKAINYAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLCA2331
																																						<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" >NENE DUGBARTEY TETTEYGA II AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>SAPPOR <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1973]
2 GLR 277<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
9 JULY 1973.<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">

A. A. AKAINYAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

AZU CRABBE C.J., SOWAH AND
KINGSLEY-NYINAH JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE C.J.<o:p></o:p>On 11
April 1962, the plaintiff-applicant-respondent (hereinafter called the
plaintiff), who did not appear at the hearing of this appeal, filed in the High
Court, Accra, a writ of summons, entitled E. T. A. Sappor etc. v. Nene D.
Tetteyga II etc., in which he claimed against the
defendant-respondent-appellant (hereinafter called the defendant): (i) £G300
(¢600.00) damages “for disturbance of and/or interference with the plaintiff’s
market, commonly called and known as “Ada-Foah Market,” and (ii) an order of
perpetual injunction. Subsequently, the plaintiff made an application to the
court for an order of interim injunction to restrain the defendant from
interfering with the market, but on 24 April 1962, this application was
withdrawn upon the defendant giving an undertaking to keep an account of the
proceeds of the market which he had established in rivalry to the plaintiff’s
market. On 26 June 1962, the plaintiff repeated his application for an interim
injunction upon the following grounds stated in his affidavit (only the
relevant grounds are stated):<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">“(4) That
when the application was withdrawn I had hoped that this action would be heard
before the commencement of the legal vacation. <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">(5) That
it is quite clear now that this action cannot be heard before October of this
year at the very earliest. <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">(6) That
in the meantime the defendant is not only carrying on operation of his own
market but has by force and threats prevented people from using the plaintiff’s
market so that the said market has been totally abandoned. <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">(7) That
if the defendant is not restrained plaintiff will not only suffer great
financial loss but it will be difficult to start again the operation of the
plaintiff’s market. (8) In the circumstances I swear to this affidavit in
support of my application for an order of interim injunction herein.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
application was heard by Ollennu J. (as he then was) who, on 29 June 1962, made
the following order:<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, his agents, servants or workmen be
and are hereby restrained from entering upon the land the subject-matter of
this suit and from committing any acts calculated to interfere with the
operation of plaintiff’s market pending the hearing and final determination of
the above-named suit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 19
July 1962 the plaintiff commenced contempt proceedings under Order 44 of the
Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), against the defendant
and respondents-appellants. The notice of motion was headed “Motion for an
order of committal or for leave to issue writ of attachment Order 44,” and in a
supporting affidavit, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, the following
facts:<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">“(3) That
on the 29th day of June, 1962, this honourable court made an order restraining
the defendant, hisn agents or servants from interfering in any way with the
operation of my ma</main>