THE REPUBLIC vs. ADONGO ALOGTE & 8 OTHERS; EX-PARTE STEPHEN AGEYIRIBA AGANA [2017]DLHC8235

Date	2017-07-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C2/21/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC8235

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

ANTHONY NAMOO FOR THE APPLICANT

ROCKSON AKUGRE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[2017]DLHC8235
																																						<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>ADONGO ALOGTE &amp; 8 OTHERS; EX-PARTE STEPHEN AGEYIRIBA AGANA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
BOLGATANGA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO. C2/21/2017&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; DATE:
26TH JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANTHONY
NAMOO FOR THE APPLICANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

ROCKSON
AKUGRE FOR THE RESPONDENTS<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>This
is a ruling touching on an application to commit the respondents for contempt
of court. The application&nbsp; arose when on
27th January, 2017, the 1st respondent caused a writ of
summons to be issued from the Registry of this court against the applicant and
one Other in respect of a piece of land said to be situated at Tindonmologo-Tingre
in Bolgatanga.&nbsp; The same day a motion for
interlocutory injunction was filed by the 1st respondent, as the
plaintiff, against the applicant herein and the other, as defendants, in
respect of the disputed land.&nbsp; However,
on 30th March, 2017, the court dismissed the motion. According to the
applicant, the next day after the dismissal of the motion, the respondents went
into the disputed land and destroyed a number of blocks he moulded and placed
on it prior to the mounting of the writ against him; not only that, he asserted
the respondents also erected a sign post on the land as a warning to deter him
from entering the property he claimed he lawfully acquired and registered in
his name.<o:p></o:p>In
paragraphs 15 to 21 of his affidavit in support of the motion, the applicant
also asserted as follows:<o:p></o:p>“15. That the Respondents
not satisfied with this wanton disregard for law and order attacked me at my
worksite near the SDA School at Tindonmologo and smashed the windscreen of my
Red Toyota Pickup with Registration No. GR 3194-13 which damage can be seen in
the picture attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT “SAA9”.<o:p></o:p>16.&nbsp; That the conduct of the Respondents came
about as a result of their displeasure with the ruling of this Honourable Court
dismissing the 1st Respondent’s motion for injunction. <o:p></o:p>17. That the undeclared
intention of the Respondents
is to prevent me from going onto the land which this Honourable Court, by its
ruling had cleared the way for me to continue my work.<o:p></o:p>18.
That I am advised which I verily believe to be true that the Respondents’
conduct is an affront to the dignity of this Honourable Court thereby impeding
the stream of justice from flowing ceaselessly. <o:p></o:p>19. That flowing (sic)
conduct exhibited by the Respondents so soon after the ruling is their outward
manifestation of their intention not to comply with the ruling of this
Honourable Court. <o:p></o:p>20. That by their conduct,
the Respondents have lowered the authority of this Honourable Court as the last bastion of the
rule of law and thereby have undermined the administration of justice. <o:p></o:p>21. That in the
circumstances, I humbly pray that the Respondents be made to purge themselves
of the contumelious behaviour and further be punished for contempt of the
orders of this Honourable Court.” <o:p></o:p>The
respondents filed individual affidavits in opposition to the motion in which
they denied the allegations made against them by the applicant. They insisted
they knew nothing about the rather rusty looking “keep-off” sign post on the disputed land which showed that it
might have been erected by a group known as Ayirengo-Biisi Youth, describing
the land as the property of AYEEBA. They deposed that they are neither related
to Ayeebaa nor are they members of Ayirengo-Biisi Youth. They averred that the
rusty nature of the sign post cannot support the assertion of the applicant
that it was recently put up, by whoever, on the land in April 2017, intended to
deter the applicant from entering the property, especially after the court’s
ruling which dismissed the interlocutory application. Respecting the damage to
the vehicle claimed by the applicant as his, the respondents again denied the
allegation linking them to it. They asserted that on the day in question, they
were nowhere near the worksite of the applicant near the SDA School. Commenting
on the photograph of the vehicle showing the damaged windscreen, they deposed
that nothing on the photograph confirmed the vehicle is the property of the
applicant, nor does it link any of them to the damage.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Without doubt, the respondents are in denial
of the allegation of contempt made against them and by the denial a burden is
cast on the applicant to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt in order
to succeed. &nbsp;The law is well-settled that
contempt of court is quasi criminal and the standard of proof, like all
criminal cases, is one beyond reasonable doubt. There are several judicial
decisions in this regard. In the Supre</main>