THE REPUBLIC vs AWUTU SENYA MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY, MR. ADAMS NUHU (THE MUNICIPAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE AWUTU SENYA MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY) AND MR. M. Y. FORKO (THE CO-ORDINATOR OF THE AWUTU SENYA EAST MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY) EX-PARTE: ADOM WO WIM CONTAINERS OWNERS ASSOCIATION [2014]DLHC16428

THE REPUBLIC vs AWUTU SENYA MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY, MR. ADAMS NUHU (THE MUNICIPAL CH... [2014]DLHC16428

Date	2014-01-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HRCM 18/14
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC16428

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KOFI ESSEL MENSAH

CHARLES BENTUM

CAPT. (RTD.) TINDANA

[2014]DLHC16428
																																						<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>AWUTU SENYA MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY, MR. ADAMS NUHU (THE MUNICIPAL CHIEF
EXECUTIVE AWUTU SENYA MUNICIPAL
ASSEMBLY) AND MR. M. Y. FORKO (THE
CO-ORDINATOR OF THE AWUTU SENYA EAST MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY) EX-PARTE: ADOM WO WIM CONTAINERS OWNERS
ASSOCIATION<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<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
NO. HRCM 18/14&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 13TH JANUARY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CHARLES BENTUM FOR APPLICANTS<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 KOFI ESSEL MENSAH<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="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This
is an application praying for an order to commit the respondents, more
especially the 2nd and 3rd respondents for contempt. The
2nd respondent is the Municipal Chief Executive of Awutu Senya
Municipal Assembly and the 3rd respondent is the Co-ordinating
Director of the said assembly.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants are group of traders who have come together to form a company
limited by guarantee. They carry out their respective trading business from
containers situate on a parcel of land acquired for the construction of a new
market by 1st respondent municipal assembly. <o:p></o:p>The
applicants found their continuous stay on the land on which their kiosks have
been located threatened when the 1st respondent Municipal Assembly
per its officers commenced the demolition of unauthorized structures on the
land to give way to the construction of the new market.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants, being dissatisfied with the activities of the respondents, on the
18th October 2013, commenced a suit against the 1st
respondent Municipal assembly to enforce their economic and proprietary rights;
and to stop the assembly from further demolishing their structures. Further to
the suit, the applicants, on the same date filed an interlocutory injunction
application to restrain the 1st respondent per its officers, agents
etc. from carrying out further demolishing or removal of containers on the
land. The applicants, further, prayed for an order to restrain the 1st
respondent from in anyway dealing with or interfering with the said land in a
manner that would violate their fundamental human rights as guaranteed by
articles 18 and 24 of the Constitution, 1992. <o:p></o:p>Both
the human right action and the motion for interlocutory injunction were served
on the 1st respondent. It was expected that upon the service of the
two processes on the assembly, activities being carried out on the land would
cease. But according to the applicants, the respondents intensified the
demolition exercise in flagrant disregard of the court processes hence the
instant application. <o:p></o:p>The
respondents filed an affidavit in opposition in which they denied the
applicants assertion. In order to prove the contempt against the respondents to
the hilt, Florence Dede Tawiah, who represents the applicants, opted to testify
from the witness box. In the course of her testimony, she tendered in evidence
certain pictures as exhibits B, B1 and B2 and exhibit C. An inventory dated 5th
November, 2013, was also tendered as exhibit A. The exhibit B series show that
some containers have been tampered with but it does not show when they were
tempered with. More importantly, it does not show that the tampering was done
after the court processes had been served on the respondents. There is
absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that the respondents did anything
on the land subsequent to the service of the court processes on them. <o:p></o:p>It
is trite law that in contempt proceedings, the standard of prove is prove
beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the applicants have not been able to
prove even a prima facie case against the respondents. The application is, thus,
unmeritorious and the same is dismissed. The Respondents are discharged,
accordingly. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;(SGD.) <o:p></o:p>KOFI ESSEL MENSAH<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;

&nbsp;</main>