ABUKARI AMADU (PLAINTIFF) vs. DINA OPESIKA AGUDEY MOSES OPESIKA AGUDEY (DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS) EMMANUEL TETTEH AMANKWA (RESPONDENT) [2009]DLHC7076

ABUKARI AMADU (PLAINTIFF) vs. DINA OPESIKA AGUDEY MOSES OPESIKA AGUDEY (DEFENDAN... [2009]DLHC7076

Date	2009-02-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CS 66/2003
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC7076

HIS LORDSHIP PETER DEI OFEI J.

[2009]DLHC7076
																																						<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" >ABUKARI AMADU<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"><o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<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>DINA OPESIKA AGUDEY MOSES OPESIKA AGUDEY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL TETTEH AMANKWA<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT
NO: CS 66/2003&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 24TH
FEBRUARY, 2009<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">

HIS LORDSHIP PETER DEI OFEI J.<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">

</div>This
application for contempt of Court has been on the Court docket since 24th May,
2006 against the original plaintiff's representatives; Abukari Amadu and
Emmanuel Tetteh Amankwa who are the respondents herein. Paragraph 11 of the
affidavit in support of the new application for contempt which was filed on
29th October, 2007 and is to replace the previous one mentioned above stated as
follows: <o:p></o:p>"That
at the hearing of this application our Counsel will seek the leave of this
Honourable Court to withdraw the application to commit the late Plaintiff for
contempt of Court filed on 24th May, 2006. <o:p></o:p>Accordingly
when this new application came to be heard, Counsel did seek leave and the
previous application for contempt against the deceased plaintiff was struck out
as withdrawn. With the withdrawal of the previous application aforesaid, how do
the new respondents become liable for the contempt of a previous order of this
Honourable Court which was issued specifically against the deceased? This is
the main issue confronting the Court now. <o:p></o:p>A
copy of the order made on 27th July, 2004 by Her Lordship M.M. Yamoa (Mrs.) was
attached to the new application reads as follows:— <o:p></o:p>"UPON READING the affidavit of
Adisa Opesika of Gbetseli Village near Michel Camp, Tema, which the
Plaintiff/Applicant herein filed on 15th July, 2004 for an order for Accounts
and variation of Order for Interim Preservation. <o:p></o:p>AND UPON HEARING EKOW DADSON, ESQUIRE,
Counsel for and on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein AND Defendants
though served absent. <o:p></o:p>IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Interim
Injunction and Preservation of the 19 Cows together with its offspring be
preserved. <o:p></o:p>AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that
the Caretaker, Mr. Bera Molu do account for the Cows placed in his custody. AND
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the accounting should be done on 10th
October, 2004 and come to Court on 14th October." <o:p></o:p>The
background to this Order of this Honourble Court is that after the Plaintiff,
Adisa Opesika obtained the above order, she managed and maneuvered and got some
Bailiffs of Court who used the order as a pretext for the collection of the
disputed Cows from the caretaker, Bera Molu's Kraal at Odumse and brought them
to Emmanuel Tetteh Amankwah, the 2nd Respondent herein's Kraal at Gbetseli
village and made it appear like it was this Honourble Court which had ordered
the cows to be transferred as such. <o:p></o:p>When
this case came before my brother, Justice E.K. Mensah, the basis of the
application which was contained in an affidavit in support was simply that the
Plaintiff/respondent acted in excess of an order of this Court dated the 27th
July, 2004. It was the case of the applicants that in its order of 27th July,
2004, the Court never specifically ordered the Plaintiff/Respondent to remove
the 19 Cows and their offsprings to any place other than where they were. That
in their view what the Court ordered was for a preservation of those animals
till the final determination of the suit, and this according to the applicants
did not warrant the Plaintiff/Respondent removing the Cows from one point to
the other. <o:p></o:p>The
application was opposed by the Plaintiff/Respondent. The grounds of the
opposition was that the Court specifically made an order for the preservation
of the disputed cows and that without any specific orders, as to where they
should be preserved, the respondent had the right and discretion to decide on
where to preserve them as that was the option left to them. <o:p></o:p>In
the end the Honourable Judge, E.K. Mensah made the following observations at
page 2 of his Ruling of 18th day of January, 20</main>