NANA OKAI ADDO, COMET PROPERTIES LIMITED vs. NUMO ODARTEY LANKWEI & 2 ORS [2014]DLHC12129

Date	2014-06-04
Suit No.	SUIT NOS. E1/70/06, E1/71/06
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC12129

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

FELIX NTOSO LED BY PROSPER NYAHE FOR APPLICANTS

EDWARD DARLINGTON FOR RESPONDENTS

[2014]DLHC12129
																																						<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" >NANA
OKAI ADDO, COMET PROPERTIES LIMITED <o:p></o:p>(APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NUMO
ODARTEY LANKWEI &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT
NOS. E1/70/06, E1/71/06&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
4TH&nbsp;JUNE 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

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

</div>This
Court delivered its Judgment on the case involving herein parties on the 23rd
day of December 2013.&nbsp; It is this
Judgment, in their quest to enforce it, by the applicants that the respondents
were alleged to have committed contempt.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;At
a first glance at the application, one cannot deduce that it is a contempt
application.&nbsp; The title/heading has not
been couched as the normal way of heading contempt applications.&nbsp; Learned Counsel for applicant’s attention had
been drawn to many times but he has been adamant.&nbsp; It is in reading the body of the motion that
one could see the respondent as one Nana Odeneho Kyeremanteng.&nbsp; What had been done by applicants is a jumble.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;However,
as it is not the form but substance, I will gloss over this technicality.&nbsp; As said earlier, one is at a loss whether
Comet Properties Limited as a second plaintiff has also been cited here.&nbsp; This is a Limited Liability Company.&nbsp; It is therefore incumbent on the applicants
to serve it at its registered office and on the Company Secretary not a typist
as done here by the applicant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
arguments for contempt can be found in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 &amp; 12.&nbsp; In all, the applicant is saying, the
respondent had gone unto the land, cleared it under armed guard.&nbsp; There were pictures attached to the
application.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
respondent, Nana Odeneho Kyeremanteng deposed that he did not go unto the land
and the photographs attached do not reflect the demarcated land.&nbsp; The respondent Nana Odeneho Kyeremanteng
argues as a lawyer of high standing he would not either by himself or in
concert with others willful disobey or disrespect a Judgment of any Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
Supreme Court in Ex-parte Ameyaw II (No.
2) reported in [1998-99]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; S C G L R
639, held in holding (2) thus:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Since contempt of Court was quasi –
criminal and the punishment for it might include a fine or imprisonment, the
standard proof required was proof beyond reasonable doubt.&nbsp; An applicant must, therefore, fixes make out
a prima facie case of contempt before the Court could consider the defences put
upon by the respondents”.<o:p></o:p>I
have today delivered a Judgment on contempt.&nbsp;
This is the case of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Republic Vrs Executive Director, E O C
O &amp; 2 Ors; Ex-parte Christopher Animako, Suit No FTRM/116/14.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
the said case I referred to Ex-parte Fordjour [2001 - 2002] S C G L R
322 where the essential elements in dealing with the offence of
contempt have been laid down.&nbsp; It
stated:- <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “(i) There must be a Judgment or Order
requiring the contemnor to do or abstain from doing something:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (ii) It must be shown that the
contemnor knows what precisely he is expected to do or abstain from doing; and<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (iii) It must be shown that the
failed to comply with the terms of the Judgment or Order and that disobedience
is willful”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
this instant application, the applicant attached some pictures.&nbsp; I do not see how these pictures connect the
respondent to it.&nbsp; The bulldozer captured
too, does not bear any inscription of Comet Properties Limited or anything.&nbsp; There is</main>