THE REPUBLIC vs. DANIEL ALEXANDER NII-NOI ADUMAH, AKWASI OWUSU-AFRIYIE AND DAVIS OMARI BOATENG; EX PATRE: BEDFORD OTOO [2020]DLHC9982

THE REPUBLIC vs. DANIEL ALEXANDER NII-NOI ADUMAH, AKWASI OWUSU-AFRIYIE AND DAVIS... [2020]DLHC9982

Date	2020-10-20
Suit No.	SUIT NUMBER: CR/0463/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC9982

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE CONSTANT K. HOMETOWU

SIDNEY ASENSO-GYAMENA ESQ. – COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

CLARA KASSER-TEE ESQ. – COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS

FRANCIS K YEBOAH ESQ. – COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

[2020]DLHC9982
																																						<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>DANIEL ALEXANDER NII-NOI ADUMAH, AKWASI
OWUSU-AFRIYIE AND DAVIS OMARI BOATENG; EX PATRE: BEDFORD OTOO<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NUMBER: CR/0463/2020&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:
20THOCTOBER 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SIDNEY ASENSO-GYAMENA, ESQ., – COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>CLARA KASSER-TEE, ESQ., – COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND
RESPONDENTS<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">FRANCIS K YEBOAH, ESQ., – COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE
CONSTANT K. HOMETOWU<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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>&nbsp;This is a motion on notice
for committal for contempt of court, pursuant to Order 50 r 1 of the High Court
[Civil Procedure] Rules, 2004 CI 47.<o:p></o:p>Parties’ Submissions<o:p></o:p>In his application in
support of the motion, filed by applicant on 15th June 2020,
deponent averred that he is the owner of a walled parcel of land which he
purchased from the Nii Amoah Okramansah Family of Amrahia sometime in 2008 and
has since been issued with a Land Title Certificate number TD 15702. He said he
has been in uninterrupted possession of his land until sometime in 2008 when 3rd
respondent and his son, both claiming to be soldiers, forcefully and violently
trespassed onto the said land and destroyed his garden and the shed protecting
same.<o:p></o:p>He deposed further that he
got to know later that 3rd respondent was claiming a portion of his
land as he had been issued with a building permit to construct on his land,
which happens to be portion of the plaintiff’s land, claiming to have the
permission of the Adentan Municipal Assembly to demolish his wall. This
allegation, he said was confirmed by the later. <o:p></o:p>He averred further that he
brought this development to the attention of the 1st respondent, who
never responded to his complaint. It was rather 3rd respondent, the
Physical Planning Officer of the Assembly, who invited deponent to his office
in February 2019 and confirmed that indeed a building permit had been issued to
3rd respondent and that portion of deponent’s land formed part of a
planned road, hence 3rd respondent could not demolish that portion.<o:p></o:p>He said he proceeded to
file a writ of summons and a statement of claim in April 2019, to which the 3rd
respondent entered conditional appearance and subsequently filed a defence and
counter-claim dated 28th May 2019.<o:p></o:p>He subsequently filed a
motion for default judgment and obtained interlocutory judgment against the Municipal
Assembly. <o:p></o:p>According to Applicant, on
20 May 2020, members of the Adentan Municipal Assembly task force, under the
instruction of 1st and 2nd respondents, came to demolish
portions of his wall in total disregard of two pending suits and the
interlocutory judgment granted by the court. He deposed that 3rd
respondent is still busily constructing his house despite a judgment
(interlocutory) of the High Court, delivered against the building permit issued
by the Adentan Municipal Assembly.<o:p></o:p>It is his prayer that “the
continuous construction by the 3rd respondent in the face of a
judgment granted against the building permit issued by the Adentan Municipal
Assembly to 3rd respondent is an act of disobedience which warrants
punishment by this court”. <o:p></o:p>He further submits that the
conduct of the assembly task force working under the instruction and direction
of the 2nd respondent, who has notice of the judgment against the
assembly, ought to be the basis for the 2nd respondent’s conviction
for contempt.<o:p></o:p>Similarly, it is his
contention that the 1st respondent, in his position as the Chief
Executive Officer of the Assembly, should be punished for interfering with the
administration of justice, since the task force and 2nd respondent
are his subordinates and he is responsible for their actions. By this he is
relying on the principle of command responsibility.<o:p></o:p>For purposes of clarity, it
is importa</main>