AGYIMAN IV vs. ASAMANY AND OTHERS [1984]DLHC827

Date	1984-05-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLHC827

APATU-PLANGE J.

HOMENYA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.

ADZOE FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS

[1984]DLHC827
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

AGYIMAN IV <o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, HO} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 24<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
29 MAY 1984<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

HOMENYA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

ADZOE FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS<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 1.0pt 0in">

APATU-PLANGE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APATU-PLANGE J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the applicant)
Togbe Adzendzi Agyiman IV alias Michael Kofi Agyiman, praying this court for an
order of attachment against the defendants (the respondents herein) for their
contempt of the order of this court made on 13 March 1984.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
grounds of the application are that the respondents flouted and flagrantly
disobeyed the order of this court and entered the land in dispute and planted
maize in the area where the applicant was cultivating a maize farm contrary to the
order of this court made on 13 March 1984.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents denied that they have disobeyed the order of this court made on 13
March 1984, even though they admitted entering on to the disputed land after
the order was made on 13 March 1984. In paragraphs 9-10 and 13-16 of the
respondent’s affidavit in opposition they deposed as follows:<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">“9. That
the order made by this honourable court did not say that we the defendants
should not enter the disputed land. <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">10. That
the order obtained initially by the applicant sought to restrain us from
further felling of palm trees on the land in dispute ... 13. The order of this
court was simply that we should not interfere with the plaintiff’s occupation
of the land as well as his right to farm thereon. 14. The order did not say
that we the defendants and members of our family should not enter the land to take
our food crops on the land or make new farms on the land. 15. That the
intendment of the order and our understanding thereof is that so far as parties
could occupy the land and make farms thereon, we the defendants are not
interfering with the plaintiff’s right to farm on the land. 16. That the only
restriction is that neither side should fell palm trees or economic trees until
the final determination of the suit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The order
of the court made on 13 March 1984 stated as follows:<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">“The
plaintiff is to continue his occupation on the land in dispute as well as his
farming activities on the land without any interference whatsoever from the
defendants or their agents and servants until the final determination of this
suit. However the plaintiff, his agents and/or servants are also hereby
restrained from felling any further palm trees on the land until the final
determination of this suit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
to me that for the respondents to say that the above order did not amount to
restraining them from entering and farming on the land is misconceived. Indeed,
this order read together with the whole ruling clearly shows that the
respondents and their agents are not to interfere with the disputed land until
the final determination of this suit. In my ruling, I made it clear that the
applicant exhibited a deed of purchase which shows that he purchased the land
in 1968 and has since been in possession of it. I also stated that the respondents
in their counterclaim are seeking, among other reliefs, an order to set aside
the purported sale of the l</main>