THE REPUBLIC vs. NANA DONKOR MANIANOR AND KINGSLEY ASARE KWAKYE EX PARTE AWUKU MANTE A.K.A KWASI AWUKU [2018]DLHC3377

THE REPUBLIC vs. NANA DONKOR MANIANOR AND KINGSLEY ASARE KWAKYE EX PARTE AWUKU M... [2018]DLHC3377

Date	2018-11-09
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.CR/275/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3377

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

JULIUS ASINYO ESQ FOR ARCHIE DANSO ESQ FOR RESPONDENTS

KIN HUSSEIN ESQ FOR APPLICANT

[2018]DLHC3377
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA DONKOR MANIANOR AND KINGSLEY ASARE KWAKYE<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE AWUKU MANTE A.K.A KWASI AWUKU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO.CR/275/17&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;DATE: 9TH NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JULIUS
ASINYO, ESQ FOR ARCHIE DANSO, ESQ FOR RESPONDENTS <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">

KIN HUSSEIN, ESQ FOR APPLICANT <o:p></o:p>

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicant
has mounted this application under Order 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, C. I. 47 praying for an order of committal for contempt against the two Respondents.
Upon an oral motion to hear evidence by counsel for Applicant, I acceded to the
request. This caused inordinate delay and I had to vacate my order for oral
evidence. The affidavit evidence adduced vindicated the vacation of my order
for oral evidence as that would not have added anything at all save to increase
expense and waste more precious time of the court. The grounds upon which the
application has been launched can be gleaned from the affidavit and the
supplementary affidavits that accompanied the application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicant
claim that 1st Respondent instituted an action against him in Suit
No FAL/623/14 for which he contested the claim of 1st Respondent in
that suit. With 2nd Respondent having been appointed by 1st
Respondent as his attorney the suit which was a land matter commenced at the
District Court, Mampong ended at the High Court, Koforidua. In the said suit,
according to the Applicant, 1st Respondent applied for interlocutory
injunction to restrain him but same was dismissed by the High Court. It is
further deposed that 1st Respondent in the said land suit executed
terms of settlement by which he committed to vacating the subject matter of the
Applicant’s counterclaim and by perpetual injunction restrained himself, his
agents, workmen, assigns and land guards from entering the land described in
the terms of settlement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicant
further continue that the terms of settlement was filed at the High Court and that
2nd Respondent has full knowledge of the terms of settlement and the
order of the High Court dismissing 1st Respondent’s application for
interlocutory injunction. That whiles the matter was still pending in court,
Respondents have gone to a portion of the land described in the counter claim
as having been adjudged in the terms of settlement in favour of Applicant. Upon
a complaint made to the Dodowa Police, according to the Applicant, 2nd
Respondent claim that he only graded about 40 acres of the land by virtue of a
power of attorney granted him by 1st Respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
has also been an allegation that 2nd Respondent did not only grade
the land but that it was done with land guards which he used to invade the land
and that with the pendency of the matter in court, the actions of the
Respondents makes mockery of justice and has prejudiced the pendency of this
suit. And besides, the Respondents have proceeded to sell portions of the land
in dispute to third parties which amount to contemptuous conduct as
administration of justice has been brought into disrepute and hence the
application for committal. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Respondents
have opposed the application for committal and in the affidavit in opposition
deposed to by the 1st Respondent he claim that 2nd
Respondent has never been his agent. He contends that an attempt by the
Applicant to have the terms of settlement adopted by the Koforidua High Court
failed when the court was made aware of the circumstances under which the terms
of settlement was procured. He rather intimates that it is the Applicant who
has sold portions of the land by situating land guards on the land. 1st
Respondent accuse the Applicant for being responsible for the grading of the
land and working on the subject matter. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Contempt
applications being a quasi-criminal trial the Applicant is under duty to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt. See IN RE EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS; REPUBLIC v. ODURO NUMAPAU, PRES</main>