THE REPUBLIC vs. JOHNSON COMPLEX AND VICTOR KWABENA JOHNSON (RESPONDENTS) EXPARTE: LT. COL. MANASSEH OKPOTI KONEY [2019]DLHC7646

THE REPUBLIC vs. JOHNSON COMPLEX AND VICTOR KWABENA JOHNSON (RESPONDENTS) EXPART... [2019]DLHC7646

Date	2019-04-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR/579/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7646

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU J.

KENNEDY EFFAH WITH DESMOND ISREAL H/B FOR L.S.N. AKEUETTEH’S FOR APPLICANT

ALFRED ENYAAH FOR PETER ZWEENES FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLHC7646
																																						<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><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>JOHNSON
COMPLEX AND VICTOR KWABENA JOHNSON<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE: LT. COL. MANASSEH OKPOTI KONEY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT 4), ACCRA]<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. CR/579/2018&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
17TH APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KENNEDY
EFFAH WITH DESMOND ISREAL H/B FOR L.S.N. AKEUETTEH’S FOR 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">

ALFRED
ENYAAH FOR PETER ZWEENES 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">

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG
OWUSU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>This is an application for an
order to commit the respondents to prison for contempt<o:p></o:p>The
applicant filed two affidavits, one being supplementary to the other, in
support of his application in which he disclosed the following:&nbsp;&nbsp; He is a son, beneficiary and one of the
administrators of the estate of J. E. Koney.&nbsp;&nbsp;
On the 13th of March, 2006, one Emmanuel Okpoti Koney
(deceased) who was also a beneficiary and an administrator of the estate of the
late J. E. Koney was authorized by the administrators to institute an action
against the 1st respondent herein in the High Court on behalf of the
estate to recover possession of H/No. C30/4, Tip Toe Lane Accra after the
deadline for the 1st respondent therein to quit the premises expired
on 31st of December, 2005.&nbsp;
Subsequently on an application by the applicant, an order of
interlocutory injunction was made by the Court against the 1st
respondent on the 21st of June, 2006.&nbsp; In the injunction order the Court restrained
the 1st respondent from carrying out any further developments on the
property in dispute and from dealing in any way with the property pending the
final determination of the suit.&nbsp; The
applicant’s complaint in this action was that the respondents have carried out
various developments on H/No. C30/4, Tip Toe Lane Accra in violation of the
said order.&nbsp; He insisted that
developments or works were carried out without the knowledge and consent of the
administrators.<o:p></o:p>The 2nd
respondent, the chief executive officer of the 1st respondent
deposed to an affidavit in opposition for and on behalf of the 1st
respondent.&nbsp;&nbsp; The respondents denied the
averments as contained in the affidavit of the applicant.&nbsp; While they conceded that they were restrained
by the order from carrying out any further developments on the property, they
insisted that no development has been carried out on the property in strict
compliance with the Court’s order.&nbsp; Their
case was that all they have done is to ensure that the applicant’s property has
been in perfect tenantable condition.&nbsp;
They went further to explain that because of the injunction order the
property had deteriorated and been left unattended to in terms of
beautification and cleanliness to the extent that the Ghana Tourism Authority
responsible for the licensing of hotels had to withhold their operational
licenses for the years 2016 and 2017 following an inspection conducted at the
premises.&nbsp; It was their contention that
in order to renew their license they had to carry out a beautification exercise
on the property.&nbsp; They denied that they
have violated the order of injunction.<o:p></o:p>The
point strongly urged on behalf of the applicant by his counsel was that the
clear and unambiguous order of this Court has been and continues to be violated
by the respondents.&nbsp; Learned counsel for
the applicant prayed that the respondents be committed to prison for willfully
violating the order of the Court.&nbsp; In
reaction to the objection raised by the respondents counsel to the application
he submitted that because contempt applications are fresh actions on their own
the provisions of Order 37 of CI 47 are inapplicable to the present
application. <o:p></o:p>For his
part it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the
application was fundamentally flawed because it failed to exhibit the order
which the respondents are alleged to have disobeyed or flouted.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;It
was the contention of counsel that the respondents were not restrained by the
order of 21st of June, 2006 from carrying on business on the
property.&nbsp; He further pointed out that
the respondents have in strict compliance with the order of the Court not
carried out any development.&nbsp; Counsel
contended that in the face of the explanation offered by the respondents they
couldn’t be liable for contempt.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
also raised a preliminary point in law of procedural character.&nbsp; </main>