KOSE AND ANOTHER vs. ACQUAH AND OTHERS [1994]DLHC332

Date	1994-05-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1994]DLHC332

AKOTO-BAMFO J

KOJO ANAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANTS.

BROOKMAN-AMISSAH FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS.

[1994]DLHC332
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">KOSE AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ACQUAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 509<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:KOJO ANAN FOR
THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANTS.BROOKMAN-AMISSAH
FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:AKOTO-BAMFO J___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT OF AKOTO-BAMFO J.<o:p></o:p>In this application the plaintiff-applicants (hereinafter referred
to as the applicants) pray for an order attaching the bodies of the
defendant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) for
disobeying various orders made by the court since December 1991.<o:p></o:p>It is, in my view, necessary to give a resume of the events
leading to the present application. On 19 September 1991 the applicants took
out a writ of summons claiming for: (1) an order that the first and second
respondents hand over keys belonging to their deceased father to them for
inventory to be taken; (2) an order that the third respondent hand over cattle
in his possession to the applicants for distribution; and (3) an order
restraining the respondents from interfering with the administration of the
estate.<o:p></o:p>The gist of the case for the applicants as per their statement of
claim is that their late father, Kweku Ghansah, died testate; his children, the
applicants, were appointed executors. The defendants styling themselves as
customary successors had, however, prevented them from administering the
estate. In their defence, as per their statement of defence, the respondents
contended that the will was not valid and furthermore, that since the
properties listed in the inventory were family properties, the late Kweku
Ghansah could not validly dispose of them in a will.<o:p></o:p>On 12 December 1991, upon the applicants’ motion, the court made
an order directing that the first and second respondents should hand over the
keys to the applicants for them to take inventory and for the third respondent
to hand over the cattle in his possession. Upon a subsequent application for
review by the respondents, the court on 23 June 1992 made an order directing
the registrar of the court to go with the parties to take inventory of all the
properties and to file a report. The registrar complied with the orders and
subsequently filed a report. The court thereafter on 9 December 1992 ordered
the respondents not to intermeddle with the properties listed in the report submitted
by the registrar on 23 June 1992.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that various orders
made by the court since December 1991, after the grant of probate to them, had
been disobeyed by the respondents whose main contention was that wills were
alien to their family. According to him, the respondents had committed various
acts of disobedience in that in 1993 when the first applicant entered the room
of the testator to pack some things, he was forcibly removed by the respondents
and the door locked. He submitted that the fact that Esi Rigya who styled
herself as customary successor had commenced proceedings at the High Court,
Cape Coast did not entitle the respondents to flout the orders made by the
court. Additionally, he urged that the second respondent had erected structures
in the yard of the testator and was using same as a school without payment of
rents to the administrators.<o:p></o:p>In opposing the application, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the application was brought in bad faith. According to him,
after the order of 12 December 1991 which directed that the keys be handed over
to the applicants for inventory to be taken, an application for review was
considered by the court and that the court on 23 June 1992 reviewed the earlier
order made. The registrar was appointed to take inventory and to submit a
report. He, therefore, submitted that the order of 12 December 1991 ceased to
operate. He argued that since the only subsisting order was the order of 9
December 1992, and no acts constituting intermeddling had since been committed
by the respondents, the application was misconceived. According to him, it was
Esi Rigya who had the applicants removed, and with her death, no other person
ought to be held liable. With regard to the school, he submitted that the
testator, while alive, allowed the second respondent to put up the structure
and to run the school and he cannot therefore be said to have flouted orders
subsequently made.<o:p></o:p>An injunction is an authoritative form of order made by the court
expressly enjoining a party either to do a particular act or to refrain from
doing a particular act. The general rule is that it is the duty of those so
enjoined strictly to observe the terms of the injunction. The court will punish
a person for contempt upon adequate proof that the terms of the injunction are
clear and unambiguous; that the respondents had had proper notice of such
terms; and that the terms have been broken by the respondents</main>