THE REPUBLIC vs. KWAKU KPONYO EX PARTE; CHRISTOPHER AMU AVATA [2013]DLCA8144

Date	2013-07-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/189/12
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8144

KANYOKE JA (PRESIDING)

APALOO JA

LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA

NICHOLAS ZEWU GLOVER ESQ FOR APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

YAO YEGBEY ESQ FOR RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

[2013]DLCA8144
																																						<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>KWAKU KPONYO<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE;
CHRISTOPHER AMU<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>AVATA<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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. H1/189/12&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 17TH
JULY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL.<o:p></o:p>NICHOLAS
ZEWU GLOVER ESQ FOR APPLICANT/RESPONDENT<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">

YAO
YEGBEY ESQ FOR RESPONDENT/APPELLANT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

KANYOKE
JA (PRESIDING), APALOO JA, LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA<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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>APALOO JA;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is an appeal from the decision of the
High Court Denu dated 4th February 2011.&nbsp; The High Court Denu found the
Respondent/Appellant (to be referred to as Respondent) guilty of contempt for
his continuous stay on or occupation of Avata land.&nbsp; The trial Court imposed a fine of GH¢500.00
on the Respondent or in default 4 weeks imprisonment.&nbsp; It is understood that the Respondent has
since paid the fine.<o:p></o:p>The
Applicant/Respondent (to referred to as Applicant) had in an affidavit in
support of his motion for contempt stated that he was declared the owner of a
piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Avata-Akatsi commonly known
and called Avata land by three judgments.&nbsp;
The judgments according to the Applicant emanated from the High Court Ho
and Denu, and the District Court Abor.&nbsp;
These judgments were exhibited as Exhibits A, B, and C.&nbsp; The applicant claimed that the Respondent had
disobeyed these judgments by entering and cultivating the Avata land and by
constructing buildings on the same land.&nbsp;
Such conduct according to the Applicant amounted to contempt and hence
his application for committal of the Respondent.<o:p></o:p>It
is the case of the Respondent that the land referred to in the judgment,
Exhibit “A”, belonged to his great grandfather by name Aklade and that the land
is Aklade family land.&nbsp; The Respondent
traced his genealogical tree to his biological father known as Togbui Kponyo
II.&nbsp; He averred that his biological son
is the present reigning chief of Avata under the stool name of Togbui Kponyo
III.&nbsp; The Respondent by this affidavit
gave the history of the land leading to the judgments in Exhibits B and C.<o:p></o:p>Having
been found guilty of contempt by the trial court the Respondent filed eight
grounds of appeal.&nbsp; Apart from the
omnibus ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence adduced at the
trial, the seven other grounds consisted of arguments and unnecessarily long
narrations which will not serve any appellate purpose if the same are
reproduced here.&nbsp; In any case the omnibus
ground will cater in our view for the other grounds as well.&nbsp; We shall accordingly proceed to consider this
ground of appeal.<o:p></o:p>It
is trite law and learning that where the appellant alleges that the decision of
the trial court is against the weight of evidence, the appellate court assumes
the duty to analyse the entire record of appeal so as to satisfy itself that on
the preponderance of probabilities the conclusions of the trial Judge are
reasonably or amply supported by the evidence on record.&nbsp; See Tuakwa
vrs Bosom [2001-2002] SCGLR 61.&nbsp; The
burden to satisfy the appellate Court that indeed the judgment is unreasonable
having regard to the evidence is cast on the appellant.&nbsp; See also Ampomah
vrs Volta River Authority [89-90] 2 GLR 28.<o:p></o:p>In
arriving at his decision to convict the Respondent, the trial Judge summed his
observations in this manner;<o:p></o:p>“In the present case exhibit
‘A’ attached to the application shows that the Plaintiff and one other was
adj</main>