THE REPUBLIC vs. NII KWEI APLAKU MANTSE EX PARTE STEPHEN KOFI ARMAH [2017]DLHC3319

Date	2017-05-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR 253/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3319

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

NICHOLAS JOSEPH NKRUMAH FOR RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2017]DLHC3319
																																						<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 KWEI APLAKU MANTSE EX PARTE STEPHEN
KOFI ARMAH<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(GENERAL JURISDICTION 7), 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
253/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;17TH MAY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

NICHOLAS
JOSEPH NKRUMAH FOR RESPONDENT 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>The
Applicant has mounted this application under Order 50 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 seeking an order of committal for contempt against
the Respondent. In the motion he claims that Respondent should be committed due
to ‘willful and continued disregard of
the authority of this honourable court” by reason of his continued erection
of building structures on the land in dispute, placing a caretaker, trip of
chipping stones and fixing the main gate on the disputed property in the face
of an interim injunction granted by this honourable court.<o:p></o:p>The
basis of this claim of Applicant is contained in the affidavit that accompanied
the motion which can be summarized as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That
he filed an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain Respondent
from proceeding with further development on the res litiga till final determination of the suit which said
application was granted on the 12th January, 2017. To Applicant
notwithstanding the fact that the order was duly served on the Respondent, he
has disregarded the order and continue to build on the disputed land by roofing
a single room on the land, putting a padlock on the main gate and also placing
a container for his land guards to keep watch over the disputed land.<o:p></o:p>According
to Applicant these acts are meant to bring the administration of justice into
disrepute, prejudice fair trial, due process and the authority of the judicial
system and create a fait accompli of the pending motion. To him the only way
for Respondent to abate the trespass is to commit him to prison for contempt of
court.<o:p></o:p>Defendant/Respondent
has denied the averments contained in the Applicant’s affidavit and contend
that Applicant is not entitled to the order that he seeks. To him he has not
done anything that can be interpreted as a violation of the order of the court as
the pictures exhibited by the Applicant are all old pictures taken about five
years ago with no new development on the land.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;
text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
defines contempt of court as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:5.3pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:34.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.2pt;line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;
text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">“wilful disobedience or open disrespect of the
orders, authority, or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; dignity of a
court or a Judge acting in a judicial capacity by &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; disruptive &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; language
or conduct or by failure to obey the court’s orders”.<o:p></o:p>In
his book Contempt of Court (2nd Ed.)(1895) at page 6, Oswald states
as follows:-<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>‘Contempt of Court may be
said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and
administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or
prejudice parties, litigants, or their witnesses during the litigation.’<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
RE EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS (NO.2);
REPUBLIC v. ODURO NUMAPAU, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS &amp;
OTHERS; EX –PARTE AMEYAW II (NO.2),(1998-99) SCGLR 639, the Supreme Court
noted as follows when it set out the kinds of contempt known to the law that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>‘’Civil
contempt are those quasi-contempt which consist in the failure to do something
which the party is ordered by the court to do for the benefit or advantage of
another party to the proceedings before the court, while criminal contempts are
acts done in disrespect of the court or its process, or which obstruct the administration
of justice or tend to bring the court into disrespect.’’<o:p></o:p>