THE REPUBLIC vs. LIONEL HAMMOND (RESPONDENT) EX PARTE: VICTOR BAAH (APPLICANT) [2019]DLHC7145

Date	2019-07-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CR/352/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7145

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J

RAYMOND AFAWUBU ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.

PRINCE NII N. ASHIE ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2019]DLHC7145
																																						<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>LIONEL HAMMOND<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: VICTOR BAAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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/352/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 30TH JULY,
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>RAYMOND AFAWUBU ESQ., FOR
THE APPLICANT.<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">

PRINCE
NII N. ASHIE ESQ., FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, J <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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
instant application, which was filed on the 25th March 2019, seeks
an order of this court to commit the respondent for contempt. Attached to the
application is an affidavit in support and a supplementary affidavit in
support. The respondent is opposed to the application and has, as a result,
filed an affidavit in opposition as well as a supplementary affidavit in
opposition.<o:p></o:p>The
crux of the application is that the applicant says that he was sued by the
respondent at the Circuit Court for, among others, an order for recovery of
possession of the land on which stands a school known as Universal Academy School.
After the hearing of the case, the respondent’s action was dismissed by the
Court. The applicant says that notwithstanding the dismissal of the
respondent’s suit together with an application for stay of execution, the
respondent had deliberately placed “three kiosks directly at the main entrance
of the School.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant says that the actions of the respondent is wilful and contrary to the
judgment of the Circuit Court especially given that the Court restrained the
respondent from interfering with the quiet enjoyment and possession of the land
in question. The applicant has also deposed, in a supplementary affidavit, that
on the 8th and 15th May 2019, the respondent took
prospective purchasers to the school in an attempt to sell the land and the
school.&nbsp; The applicant therefore prays
the court to convict the respondent for contempt and punish him accordingly.<o:p></o:p>In
his affidavit in opposition the respondent deposed that the kiosk complained of
by the applicant has been at where it is even before he instituted the action
at the Circuit Court and that the applicant, in his counterclaim before the
Circuit Court, never prayed the court for the removal of the kiosk from where
it had stood before the filing of the suit before the Circuit Court.<o:p></o:p>It
has been held In Re: Effiduase Stool
Affairs (No. 2); Republic v. Numapau, President of the National House of
Chiefs; Ex Parte Ameyaw II [1998-99] SCGLR 639, that:<o:p></o:p>“Since
contempt of court was quasi criminal and the punishment for it might include a
fine or imprisonment the standard of proof required was proof beyond reasonable
doubt.”<o:p></o:p>The
court therefore holds that it is the duty of the within named applicant to
adduce cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable
doubt and especially so since the respondent has denied all the fundamental
depositions in the supporting affidavit.<o:p></o:p>Indeed,
a careful examination of exhibit VB3 exhibited by the applicant shows that the
kiosks in question are very old structures that have been on the land for a
very long time. There is nothing on the picture in the said exhibit to confirm
that the kiosks were recently brought there. This fact, in the opinion of the
court, goes to support the case of the respondent that the kiosks have been in
place long before the respondent instituted the action at the Circuit Court.<o:p></o:p>After
examining the evidence on record, the court holds that the applicant has failed
to adduce credible evidence to prove that the respondent has done anything
which is contumaciously contemptuous of the orders of the Circuit Court. The
court holds therefore that the respondent is not guilty of the allegations
leveled against him. The application is therefore dismissed. <o:p></o:p>Costs
of GH¢500.00 to the Respondent against the Applicant.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>