THE REPUBLIC vs. HANNA AMPOFO [2009]DLHC4309

Date	2009-09-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IRLM/8/2009
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC4309

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. NELSON COFFIE FOR THE APPLICANT

MR. DANIEL DWETEH AGYARE HOLDING THE BRIEF OF NAA ODOFOLEY

NORTEY FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2009]DLHC4309
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>HANNA AMPOFO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION),
ACCRA]<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">

SUIT NO. IRLM/8/2009&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;DATE: 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2009
<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR.
NELSON COFFIE FOR THE APPLICANT<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">

MR. DANIEL DWETEH AGYARE HOLDING THE BRIEF
OF NAA ODOFOLEY NORTEY 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 1.0pt 0in">

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU,
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling is in respect of an application for contempt of court
filed by the applicant herein against the respondent herein on 27th
July, 2009.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The applicant avers that after a protracted litigation between the
parties Suit No. L269/91 was settled out of court and the Terms of Settlement
were filed in court on the 4th March, 2009. This was adopted by the
court as consent judgment in the litigation on the same day. By the said
judgment, the parties divided the disputed land into two equal parts with each
party taking 31feet 6inches.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Later the applicant visited the land and found that both the
applicant’s land and the respondent’s land had been fenced with zinc roofing
sheets. Also foundation covering part of
applicant’s portion of the land had been excavated and concrete cement was
being poured therein by a labour force of about 30men. The applicant goes on to
aver that in spite of the fact that the terms of settlement are tantamount to a
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, the respondent is treating the
terms of settlement with contempt.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The applicant states that the respondent’s conduct is deliberate
to force his hand to negotiate with an Indian. The respondent should,
therefore, be committed for contempt and punished according to law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondent has opposed the application. She avers that after
receiving the current process, she caused a measurement to be done and she
realized that she has entered the applicant’s land by 8feet. She is, therefore,
willing either to lease or buy the 8feet from the applicant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondent goes on to argue that she has not conducted herself
in a manner that is intended to bring the administration of justice into
disrepute or interfere with a pending litigation as there is none. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She avers that the standard of proof in contempt matters is proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant has not been able to provide that proof,
so the application is unmeritorious and must be dismissed with heavy costs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>