THE REPUBLIC vs. NII TEIKO OYENINA & 11 ORS. EX-PARTE NII AMARKAI III & 4 ORS. [2019]DLHC10343

Date	2019-03-18
Suit No.	SUIT №. CR/0160/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10343

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS)

[2019]DLHC10343
																																						<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 TEIKO OYENINA &amp; 11 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE NII AMARKAI III &amp; 4 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT
№. CR/0160/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
18TH MARCH, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS)<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;MOTION
ON NOTICE FOR COMMITAL OF CONTEMPT<o:p></o:p>Ruling<o:p></o:p>The five applicants herein, per the present
application, have requested this Court for an order committing the respondents
herein to prison for contempt of Court. The request of the applicants does not
find favour with the Court and in this ruling the Court explains why it is not
inclined to grant the request of the applicants.<o:p></o:p>The reason for the applicants’ request was
that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the ruling of the High Court
(differently constituted) in suit no. GJ/1764/2017 which restrained the
respondents from entering the Asere Palace at Kaneshie unless under some
particular conditions set down in the said ruling. The applicants also claimed
that the respondents have taken over the said palace to the exclusion of the 1st
applicant who is said to be the Dzasetse of Asere and acting Asere Mantse and
have prevented him from entering the said palace and further, that the
respondents have broken into the office of the 1st applicant within
the palace whilst the 1st applicant had in his custody the keys to
the said office.<o:p></o:p>The applicants claim that the conduct of
the respondents was reported to the police at Kaneshie where the Commanding
Officer met all the parties and explained to the respondents the need for them
to respect the ruling of the High Court. The applicants contend that the
respondents maintained an uncompromising attitude at the Police Station and
therefore it became necessary for the applicants to resort to this present
application in order to get the respondents committed to prison for their
wilful disobedience of the ruling of the High Court.<o:p></o:p>The ruling of the High Court which the
respondents are alleged to have disobeyed was annexed to the application as
Exhibit ‘F’ and it is dated 26th January, 2018 and it was delivered
by my brother Eric Kyei Baffour J. sitting in the High Court (General
Jurisdiction 7). <o:p></o:p>A careful reading of the said ruling shows
that it granted an application for interlocutory injunction by the 1st
applicant herein who was then the 1st plaintiff in that substantive
suit against the 1st and 2nd respondents herein who were
the defendants/respondents in that suit. The interlocutory injunction was to
restrain the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents therein “from
entering the Asere Palace to threaten or disturb the quiet enjoyment of the
current occupants or users until the final determination of the suit save if
for stated reason, the defendants need to go to the palace to perform any
customary rites, for the sake of peace and not to endanger its breach, the
defendants must notify the police of the date and time with a copy of the
notification served on the plaintiffs, who are in possession of the palace to
ensure adequate security during the time the defendants would be in the palace
to perform their customary rites”.<o:p></o:p>It is this restraining order which the
respondents herein are alleged to have flouted and which has led to this
present application. It must be stated at this stage that apart from the first
respondent herein, none of the remaining respondents in this contempt application
is or was a party to the said suit (GJ/1764/2017). The 2nd
defendant/respondent in that suit who was originally listed as the 2nd
respondent in this present contempt application is said to be deceased.<o:p></o:p>It is trite to say that in an application for
commital for contempt for the disobedience of a Court order, the Court must
satisfy itself that the alleged contemnor/s was or were aware of the order and
that he or they wilfully disobeyed it. See the following cases: - REPUBLIC v. SITO I, EX-PARTE FORDJOUR [2001-2002]
SCGLR 322; REPLUBIC v. HIGH COURT ACCRA, EX-PARTE LARYEA MENSAH [1998-99] SCGLR
360; AGBLETA v. THE REPLUBLIC (1977) 1 GLR 445 C.A.<o:p></o:p>The respondents herein, on their part, have
denied being aware of any ruling of the High Court and they have also denied taking
over the said Asere Palace.<o:p></o:p>This Court has carefully considered all the
affidavit evidence of the applicants and the respondents and it is of the
opinion that it is not clear from the evidence of the applicants when the
respondents are alleged to have taken over the Asere Palace. It is also not
clear when the said ruling of the High Court dated 26th January,
2018 was brought to the notice of the respondents herein. The applicants claim
that the respondents were aware of the order of the High Court because they
were attending Court proceedings, however there is nothing on the evidence of
the applicants that proves that the respondents herein were present in Court on
the said 26th day of January, 2018, when the order of interlocutory
injunction was delivered in suit no. GJ/1764/2017 which is titled<o:p></o:p>