REPUBLIC vs. ANDREWS TETTEH BOYE EX PARTE ANYETEI NUNOO [2017]DLHC3315

Date	2017-06-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR 273/17
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3315

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

LAWRENCIA ADIKA MS FOR APPLICANT PRESENT

[2017]DLHC3315
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANDREWS TETTEH BOYE EX PARTE ANYETEI
NUNOO<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION), 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">

SUIT NO. CR
273/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 9TH
JUNE, 2017<o:p></o:p>

LAWRENCIA ADIKA, MS FOR APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC K. BAFFOUR, ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>It is stated under 50 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil
(Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 as follows:<o:p></o:p> 
“The power of the court to punish for
contempt of court may be exercised by an order of committal”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicant in pursuance of the above rule has cited the
Respondent for being in contempt of the court. He has provided the basis of the
order of committal he seek in a twenty nine paragraph affidavit that
accompanied the application together with a voluminous attachments of rulings
and decisions from the various courts in Ghana.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This can be summarized as follows: On the 21st
of October, 2014 the High Court presided over by Anthony Kofi Abada J gave
judgment in a case of La Dadekotopon Youth Association v Nii Kpobi Tettey-Tsuru
and 19 others wherein the judgment went in favour of La Dadekotopon Youth
Association against twenty persons regarding the management of La Pleasure
Beach. His Lordship decreed that an Interim Management Committee (IMC) made up
of Ministry of Tourism, La Traditional Council and the La Dadekotopon Youth
Association be constituted to operate the La Pleasure beach. The defendants
were restrained from interfering with the management of the La Pleasure beach
and were ordered to file a detailed statement of account. Appeal was subsequently
launched against the decision at the Court of appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Indigenes of La have since then in one suit or the
other raised the very issues that were determined by Abada J. in successive
writs filed. In all the suits the Applicant and his agents have successfully
resisted the suits by filing applications under Order 11 rule 18 of the High
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 for the reason that the suits are an
abuse of the judicial process or vexatious in nature.<o:p></o:p>In an application filed by the defendants in the suit
that went before Abada J wherein they sought to withdraw the mandate of the
IMC, George Atto Mills-Graves J. stated at page 11 of his ruling as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“… the court
is of the opinion that the latest of the defendants’ instant application is a
clever way of going around the perpetual injunction that had been slammed
against defendants by the judgment of Abada J which defendants have appealed
against to the court of Appeal”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In yet another suit before Novisi Afua Ayene J the
suit was dismissed on the ground that they were seeking to re-litigate a matter
that has effectively been determined. See Ex AN7.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicant and his agents again successfully resisted a
writ no AHR/10/2015 by an application before Daniel Mensah J. it appears that
the ruling of Mensah J. that a group that had styled itself as La Concerned
Youth Association were seeking to re-litigate the issues determined by Abada J is
what has precipitated this application when a fresh writ was instituted at the
High Court seeking virtually the reliefs that have been pronounced upon.<o:p></o:p>To Applicant, Respondent is fully aware of the
previous suits and the present suit he filed is tantamount to contempt and
prays the court to punish Respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Respondent’s plea to the charge is that he was not
aware of the pendency of any appeal in Suit No BC 832/2012 until he was served
with this application and has also never been aware of the writ previously
issued by La Concerned Citizens.<o:p></o:p>In the course of this ruling I will determine if the
plea of the Respondent tha</main>