THE REPUBLIC vs. EBUSUAPANYIN KOBINA ATTA, KOBINA TWOOKU, IDDI EKOW BEDIAKO, KWEKU ASMAH AND KOJO ASMAH EBUSUAPANYIN MALLAM MUMUNI EKOW EFI [2013]DLCA8396

THE REPUBLIC vs. EBUSUAPANYIN KOBINA ATTA, KOBINA TWOOKU, IDDI EKOW BEDIAKO, KWE... [2013]DLCA8396

Date	2013-03-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H1/08/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8396

ADJEI J.A. (PRESIDING)

ACKAH-YENSU J.A.

DORGU J.

CHRISTIANA ABOM MENSAH FOR THE APPELLANT

AUGUSTINE ASARFO ADJEI FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[2013]DLCA8396
																																						<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>EBUSUAPANYIN KOBINA ATTA, KOBINA TWOOKU, IDDI EKOW BEDIAKO, KWEKU ASMAH AND KOJO ASMAH<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EBUSUAPANYIN MALLAM MUMUNI EKOW EFI<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">SUIT NO: H1/08/2013&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 21ST MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p></div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CHRISTIANA ABOM MENSAH FOR THE APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">AUGUSTINE ASARFO ADJEI FOR THE RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p></div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">ADJEI J.A. (PRESIDING), ACKAH-YENSU J.A., DORGU J.<o:p></o:p></div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></div>DENNIS ADJEI, J.A:<o:p></o:p>The Applicant/Appellant filed an application at the High Court Cape Coast to commit the Respondents/Respondents for contempt for flagrant disrespect to the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast delivered on 24th November, 1988 in the case of Nana Akua Boafo vs. Kobina&nbsp; Akon and others with Suit No. CS28/176.<o:p></o:p>In1988, the High Court, Cape Coast per Kpegah J. (as he then was) refused to make an order ejecting the then defendants from the land, the subject matter of the suit after they had lost the suit. The court, however, decreed title to the Abobonko lands to the plaintiffs. The court further granted an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their assigns and servants from dealing with Abobonko land in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff’s ownership. The&nbsp; defendants were further&nbsp; ordered to attorn&nbsp; tenancy&nbsp; to the plaintiff’s family within&nbsp; six months&nbsp; from the&nbsp; date of the&nbsp; delivery&nbsp; of the judgment. The parties in that suit have died. The Applicant/Appellant herein and the respondents/respondents herein are the descendants of the plaintiff and the defendant in Suit No. CS 28/176 respectively. For the purposes of this appeal the Applicant/appellant and the Respondents/Respondents would be referred to as applicant and Respondents respectively.<o:p></o:p>This subject matter of the application before the High Court which has culminated in this appeal is a civil contempt. The respondents have been accused of doing an act which amounts to willful disobedience to the judgment of the High Court delivered on 24th November, 1988.The trial High Court Judge on 3rd May, 2012 dismissed the applicant’s application for committal for contempt for failing to prove all the requirements of civil contempt on the standard burden of proof, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Applicant dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial High Court filed an appeal against same on 16th May, 2012. The Applicant is asserting that the ruling is against the weight of evidence on record. The applicant is inviting this court to review the entire record and come to a different conclusion that all the requirements/ingredients of contempt were proved in accordance with law. The law is settled that an appellant who alleges that a judgment or ruling is against the weight of evidence&nbsp; on record is asking&nbsp; the court to review the entire evidence on record, properly evaluate it and apply the appropriate laws to arrive at a conclusion which is in consonance with law. In Djin vs. Musah Baako [2007-2008] 1SCGLR 691, the Supreme Court held that:<o:p></o:p>“Where an appellant alleges that a judgment is against the weight of evidence on record he/she is saying that there were either certain pieces of evidence which were not applied and/or certain pieces of evidence on record were wrongly applied against him/her and if corrected or properly applied in accordance with law, the judgment should be titled in his favour”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>