NII OKU OKULEY vs. EARTH CONSTRUCTION DEV’T PROJECT (ECODEP), GHANA LTD. & ANOR. [2009]DLHC4379

NII OKU OKULEY vs. EARTH CONSTRUCTION DEV’T PROJECT (ECODEP), GHANA LTD. & ANO... [2009]DLHC4379

Date	2009-11-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FAL/107/09
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC4379

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. FAUSTELL COFIE FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

MR. GEORGE ABORGAH FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2009]DLHC4379
																																						<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">NII
OKU OKULEY<o:p></o:p></a>&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;vs.&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; <o:p></o:p>EARTH CONSTRUCTION
DEV’T PROJECT (ECODEP), GHANA LTD. &amp; ANOR. [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. FAL/107/09&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;DATE: 5TH NOVEMBER, 2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. FAUSTELL COFIE FOR
PLAINTIFF/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.
GEORGE ABORGAH FOR 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">

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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling is in respect of an
application on notice for an order to commit the Managing Directors of the
defendants companies for contempt of court under Order 50 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 24th September, 2009
the plaintiff was granted an order for Interlocutory Injunction restraining the
defendants, their agents, assigns, workmen, personal representatives,
successors and all those claiming from or through them from entering,
developing or doing anything on the land in dispute, adverse to the interest of
the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The said order was to remain in
force for ten days within which the defendants were to be put on notice.
Defendants were served with the order on 24th September, 2009 and
before the order expired, they were served with Motion on Notice for
Interlocutory Injunction. In spite of this, workers of the defendants continued
working on the land in dispute. This led to the current application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendants companies per their
Managing Directors, Joseph Asamoah Gyamfi and Frank Okae-Kyei, respectively,
have denied that they are in contempt.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to Joseph Asamoah Gyamfi,
immediately he was served with the processes including the order for
Interlocutory Injunction, he showed them to the contractor who is working on
the site, that is, JDK Construction Limited and work on the site was stopped
immediately. Since then, work on the site has stopped.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Frank Okae-Kyei also states that as
soon as he was served with the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction, he called
his lawyer who asked him to inform the contractor, JDK Construction Limited, to
stop work. He immediately called the Foreman of the contractor at the site to
stop work pending determination of the application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>So to the defendants, they have not
disobeyed the court order or interfered with the administration of justice in
any way, so they are not in contempt.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In arguing the application, counsel
for the applicant contended that even though the respondents are aware of the
order of this court and they have been served with notice of the Motion for
Interlocutory Injunction, they still allowed their workers to be on the site
working. He went on to refer the court to pictures on the site in support of
his point. He claims that in respect of the second defendant, the order of the
court was served on him on 24th September, 2009. Notwithstanding the
service of this order, the workers continued to work on the site. So the
applicant quickly filed Motion on Notice even before the expiry of the ten days
and got the defendants served with first defendant being served by
substitution. In spite of this, the workers continued to work at the site. He
specifically submitted that at the time of service, the tanks were outside and
had not been buried. After being served, the defendants have gone ahead to bury
the tanks.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel goes on to submit that having
b</main>