THE REPUBLIC vs. YAA KYEIWAA AND OTHER; EX PARTE MAXWELL KOFI KONADU [2010]DLHC8258

Date	2010-06-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO C11\|22\|09
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC8258

HIS LORDSHIP MR. JACOB B. BOON

K. AMPEM – DARKO FOR APPLICANT

SULLEY SAMBIAN FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2010]DLHC8258
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>YAA KYEIWAA
AND OTHER;<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE
MAXWELL KOFI KONADU<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO C11|22|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; &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: 25TH
JUNE, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>K.
AMPEM – DARKO FOR APPLICANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SULLEY
SAMBIAN FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

HIS LORDSHIP MR. JACOB B. BOON<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>This ruling is in respect of an application for contempt
instituted against the respondents for allegedly disobeying the judgment and
orders of the Mamponteng District Court delivered on 11/07/08. The judgment was
exhibited, and it showed that the applicant had instituted a suit against the
respondents in that court claiming declaration of title, recovery of possession
of a building Plot No. A 55, lying at Ntonso, and perpetual injunction. Judgment
was entered for the applicant for his reliefs and was awarded costs of
GH¢50.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the instant application, the applicant asserts that
despite the judgment in his favour, which was delivered in the presence of the
respondents and later served on them, they have willfully ignored it, and have
refused to vacate the land, and have evinced an intention to occupy a portion
of it though it has been declared by the Mamponteng District Court to be his.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondents opposed the motion on the basis that
after the judgment in favour of the applicant, they demolished a structure they
had erected on the land; that thereafter they had nothing to do with the said
land. At the hearing it came to light that there was a supplementary affidavit
filed by the applicant, apparently in reaction to the respondents’ affidavit in
opposition but it was not served on the respondents. This necessitated an
adjournment to have it served.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was also further argued on behalf of the applicant
that, though the respondents demolished the structure they had erected on the
land of the applicant, it was done after the instant motion was filed. This was
countered by the respondents who claimed they did so before the motion for
contempt was instituted against them.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That issue could not be resolved as the court was unable
to decide which of the two versions was to be believed. However, I have studied
the judgment of Mamponteng District Court and I have not discovered any order
in it directing the respondents to remove any structure erected by them on the
land of the applicant. The judgment decreed title of the land in dispute in
applicant’s favour, and went ahead to restrain the respondents from having
anything to do with it. Nowhere in it were the respondents ordered to demolish
any structure on the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would appear that the respondents on their own decided
to demolish the structure they said they erected on the land, and which was
after the judgment against them was delivered. The applicant was satisfied with
that act, and does not regard that action per se as amounting to contempt. His
beef with it is that it was carried out after they had filed their application.
I have already said that I did not discover any order to the respondents to
demolish any structure on the land. If the matter rested there, it would have
been very difficult to hold the respondents liable for contempt as the case of
the applicant is not that the respondents defied the injunction against them,
entered the land and demolished a structure on it. That could be contempt of
the court’s judgment if that were the case of the applicant in view of the
order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However, the supplementary affidavit of the applicant
filed on 21/4/09 indicated that after the respondents demolished the st</main>