THE REPUBLIC vs. ESSASOHENE NANA BOAKYE AGYEMAN EX PARTE NANA KWAKU NSIAH [2016]DLCA4545

Date	2016-02-29
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/55/2014
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4545

E. K. AYEBI (PRESIDING) JA

GERTRUDE TORKORNOO (MRS.)

ANGELINA M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.) JA

MR. PAUL ODURO FOR DEFS/APPELLANTS

MR. OHENE ANTWI-BOSIAKO FOR PLFF/RESP

[2016]DLCA4545
																																						<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>ESSASOHENE NANA BOAKYE AGYEMAN<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE NANA KWAKU NSIAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT\APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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.: H1/55/2014&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;MONDAY,
29TH FEBRUARY 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. PAUL ODURO FOR
DEFS/APPELLANTS<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">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;tab-stops:.5in;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MR.
OHENE ANTWI-BOSIAKO FOR PLFF/RESP <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>E. K. AYEBI (PRESIDING) JA, GERTRUDE TORKORNOO
(MRS.), JA, ANGELINA M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.) JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AYEBI, JA<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
This is an appeal against the refusal
of the High Court to uphold the applicant/appellant’s application which cited
the respondent/respondent for contempt of court.&nbsp; The application was brought under Order 50
rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).&nbsp; According to the appellant, in 1991, the
respondent, as Essasohene and Nana Akosa Yiadom as Amakomhene, sued him and two
others in respect of a parcel of land at the District Magistrate Court Grade 1,
Kumasi.&nbsp; Appellant said they as defendants
therein counter-claimed for the land claimed by the respondent and the
Amakomhene - and then brought an application for an order of interlocutory
injunction to restrain the plaintiffs therein from interfering with the
possession of the land until the final determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
On 14th April 1993, the
Magistrate Court granted their application and accordingly restrained the
plaintiffs therein.&nbsp; It is the case of
the appellant that the respondent and others have obeyed the order until in
2012 and 2013 when the respondent violated it by allocating plots of land in
the disputed area to developers.&nbsp; In
paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the motion for an order committal
for contempt, the appellant listed 24 people whom the respondent has allocated
plots to.&nbsp; The allotees are developing
the plots.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The appellant averred positively that the
respondent very well knew of the injunction order on the land and yet in
violation of the order, respondent sold out portions of it.&nbsp; The conduct of the respondent he averred,
constitutes a gross disrespect to the authority of the court for which reason
he should be punished by imprisonment.&nbsp;
Appellant added that inspite of the service of the motion for committal
for contempt on the respondent, he continued to bury his deceased relatives on
the land.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In an affidavit in opposition, the
respondent did not really deny the charge that he had violated the order of
interlocutory injunction.&nbsp; He averred
that the averments in support of the motion misrepresented the true state of
events.&nbsp; It is his case that as indicated
in Exhibit C appellant exhibited to his application, the Atipin Stool is
ultimately responsible for the alienation of the land.<o:p></o:p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Further, the respondent averred that
currently there is no action pending before the District Magistrate Court where
there is a valid order of interim injunction.&nbsp;
This is because the District Court had declined jurisdiction in the
matter and there is currently a fresh su</main>