THE REPUBLIC vs. HELENA QUARSHIE EX-PARTE: SAMUEL MAcCAULEY [2019]DLHC9044

Date	2019-06-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/0381/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC9044

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

FELIX QUARTEY ESQ. OF BEACON LAW CONSULT OSU-ACCRA COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT ABSENT

KOFI ASOMANING ESQ. (HOLDING BRIEF FOR PROSPER NYAHE ESQ.) OF NYAHE LAW CONSULT LASHIBI-ACCRA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC9044
																																						<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>HELENA QUARSHIE (RESPONDENT) EX-PARTE:
SAMUEL MAcCAULEY (APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><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>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FELIX QUARTEY, ESQ., OF BEACON LAW CONSULT, OSU-ACCRA,
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT ABSENT<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;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:.2pt">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;tab-stops:61.2pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">KOFI ASOMANING, ESQ. (HOLDING BRIEF FOR PROSPER NYAHE,
ESQ.) OF NYAHE LAW CONSULT, LASHIBI-ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE
JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>In this application, the Respondent/Applicant prays
this Honourable court for an Order to Set Aside service of the Application for
Contempt by substituted service on the grounds that she was not in the
jurisdiction at the time the application was filed and the service effected.<o:p></o:p>The material facts giving rise to the present
application as gleaned from the affidavit deposed to by the
Applicant/Respondent in support of the Applicant for Contempt are that,
Applicant/Respondent sued the Respondent/Applicant herein and eleven (11) others
for the recovery and possession of a parcel of land in a suit entitled Samuel
MacCauley v. Helena Quarshie &amp; Others, Suit No: LD/0547/2019.&nbsp; Applicant/Respondent subsequently applied for
an order of interlocutory injunction, which is currently pending, and during
the pendency of this suit, he has become aware that the Respondent/Applicant is
still continuing with the development of the land, the subject matter of the
interlocutory application.<o:p></o:p>For this reason, the Applicant/Respondent initiated
contempt proceedings against the Respondent before this court on 5th
April, 2019.&nbsp; Due to the unsuccessful
attempts at effecting service of the process on the Respondent/Applicant, the
Applicant/Respondent by means of an application, ex-parte for substituted
service was granted leave to serve the Application for Contempt on the
Respondent/Applicant by substituted means on May 6th, 2019.&nbsp; It is this service that the
Respondent/Applicant, by this application, seeks to have set aside.<o:p></o:p>The Applicant/Respondent opposes this application,
first and foremost, on the grounds that it was not known to him that the
Respondent/Applicant was domiciled outside the jurisdiction and that the mere
fact of her residence outside the jurisdiction does not mean that her assigns
were not flagrantly flouting the orders of the court.&nbsp; Applicant/Respondent further avers that the
process was one of personal service by substituted service and to the extent
that attempts at service proved impracticable, service by substituted means is
allowed per the rules of the court.&nbsp;
Furthermore, the Applicant/Respondent claims the Respondent/Applicant
was fully aware of the pendency of the contempt application but yet decided to
travel outside the jurisdiction without due regard to the court for which
reason a bench warrant was issued for her arrest in respect of the contempt
proceedings.<o:p></o:p>In view of these facts, the Applicant/Respondent avers
that this application is brought in bad faith and is aimed at ridiculing the
administration of justice and hence the application must be denied.<o:p></o:p>I have carefully considered the arguments of Counsel
for both parties as they addressed the court orally.&nbsp; Thoughtful consideration has also been given
to the case law, the relevant rules of court procedure and the principles
governing the grant or otherwise of applications of this nature.<o:p></o:p>Per Order 5 Ru</main>