THE REPUBLIC vs. NII ACHIA II EX PARTE: JOSHUA NMAI ADDO AND EMMANUEL KWATEI QUARTEY-PAPAFIO [2014]DLSC3015

THE REPUBLIC vs. NII ACHIA II EX PARTE: JOSHUA NMAI ADDO AND EMMANUEL KWATEI QUA... [2014]DLSC3015

Date	2014-10-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.J8/96/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC3015

AKAMBA J.S.C

NANA OFFEI DJAN ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANTS.

BABA AVIO ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2014]DLSC3015
																																						<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>NII ACHIA II<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE:
JOSHUA NMAI ADDO AND EMMANUEL KWATEI QUARTEY-PAPAFIO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.J8/96/2014&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: 30TH OCTOBER, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>NANA
OFFEI DJAN ESQ.&nbsp; FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

&nbsp;BABA AVIO ESQ. FOR THE&nbsp;&nbsp; RESPONDENT.<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

AKAMBA
J.S.C. SITTING AS A SINGLE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT&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;&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;
<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>AKAMBA
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>Joshua Nii Nmai Addo and Emmanuel Kwatei
Quartey-Papafio the joint Applicants (hereinafter simply referred to as
Applicants) are head and representative respectively of the Nii Kwatei
Quarty-Papafio family.<o:p></o:p>The
Applicants had on 18th December 2008 issued a writ in the High
Court, Accra, against one Kwasi Owusu and the Nii Achia family in suit No. AL
44/2009 claiming a piece of land situated at Achiaman, near Amasaman in the
Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Judgment was entered by the court presided over
by Justice S.K Asiedu, on 5th September 2012 in favour of the
Applicants herein.<o:p></o:p>The
Applicants subsequently filed entry of judgment and same was served on the
losing party i.e. the Defendants/Judgment Debtors. <o:p></o:p>The
Defendants/Judgment Debtors filed an appeal on 2nd October 2012 against
the decision. This was followed by an application for stay of execution pending
the hearing of the appeal. The trial court on 29th October 2012
refused to grant the stay hence the application was repeated before the Court
of Appeal which also refused same on 21st May 2013.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondent in this application is Nii Achia II, Achiaman Mantse. Following the
dismissal of the application for stay of execution, the respondent filed an
interlocutory appeal to this Court on 5th June 2013 against the
Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant the stay.<o:p></o:p>In
this application, the Applicants contend that the Respondent herein, Nii Achia
II, Achiaman Mantse committed contempt of this honourable court before which
they have an interlocutory appeal pending. The circumstances of their
contention are well deposed in paragraphs 9 to 22; and 28 to 35 of the
affidavit in support of the motion dated 22/8/14. In summary, the Applicants
recap an earlier application for contempt brought before the High Court arising
out of the Respondent’s disobedience of the trial court’s orders and also
disrespect of the Court of Appeal before which latter court an appeal and an
application for stay of execution filed by his family were pending.<o:p></o:p>The
High Court declined to grant the contempt prayed for. The Respondent, who
refused to learn a lesson from the failed application for contempt continued
with his utter disregard, scorn and contempt for the authority of the courts by
continuing to enter, encroach upon, devastate and alter the face of the
Applicants land, subject of dispute.<o:p></o:p>The
Applicants further alleged that following the failure of the earlier contempt
application based upon respondent’s denials and in order to verify or ascertain
the true identities of the encroachers to the land, some members of Applicants
family were dispatched to t</main>