REPUBLIC vs. CONSTANCE AFFUL, THOMAS AFFUL AND GIFTY MENSAH, EX PARTE WILLIAM MENSAH [2021]DLCA11030

REPUBLIC vs. CONSTANCE AFFUL, THOMAS AFFUL AND GIFTY MENSAH, EX PARTE WILLIAM ME... [2021]DLCA11030

Date	2021-10-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/235/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLCA11030

BARBARA ACKAH YENSU JA (PRESIDING)

OBENG-MANU JNR JA

RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA

DOE AGBENU FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

EMMANUEL HAMMOND FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2021]DLCA11030
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CONSTANCE AFFUL, THOMAS AFFUL AND GIFTY MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE WILLIAM MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. H1/235/2020 &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;&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:
14TH OCTOBER, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DOE
AGBENU FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT<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:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">EMMANUEL HAMMOND FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>BARBARA ACKAH YENSU JA (PRESIDING),
OBENG-MANU JNR JA,&nbsp;&nbsp; RICHARD
ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA<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="text-align:center;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>RICHARD
ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA:<o:p></o:p>The
contempt proceedings on appeal before us ensued from a land suit involving,
much regrettably, siblings and their mother. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in that suit, now the appellant before us, commenced the action
initially against a brother and sister who are the 1st and 2nd
respondents herein. Subsequently, his two other sisters together with their
mother were joined to the action upon their application to the court. The 3rd
respondent before us was one of the sisters in that application.<o:p></o:p>In
the suit, the appellant had claimed that his late father, one Godfred Kojo
Mensah who was also the father of five of his sisters including the 3rd
respondent but excluding the 1st and 2nd respondents
(presumably born to a different father), acquired the two plots of land, the
subject matter of the suit for them. He, and the other children of the father
had developed portions of the plots, taken possession and placed tenants on
other portions. It was the enjoyment of his possession that the 1st
and 2nd respondents started disturbing, necessitating the action in
court in which he sought declaration of title and related reliefs, including
damages for trespass and injunction. <o:p></o:p>The
case of the defence on other hand was that, it was rather their mother (3rd
defendant) who acquired the two plots of land, built on one for herself and
gave the remaining one to all the children to develop for themselves. It was
said that the appellant was the one rather stoking confusion in a bid to assume
sole ownership of the plot. <o:p></o:p>Whilst
the suit was pending and before actual hearing would commence, the appellant
mounted the instant contempt proceedings against the three respondents praying
the trial court to commit them for contempt of that court.<o:p></o:p>The
basis of the application was that, during the pendency of the suit, the
respondents entered the house and asked his tenants who he had put in
possession to vacate or face their ejection by whatever means possible. It was
alleged that when the tenants had refused to vacate, the respondents went to
harass and threaten them. They also started removing the roofing sheets on the
building to force the tenants to quit.<o:p></o:p>It
was contended that the conducts of the respondents when they knew of the action
and the reliefs he was seeking against them, amounted to an interference with
the pending proceedings and a prejudice to the administration of justice hence,
they were liable in contempt of court.<o:p></o:p>Resisting
the application, the respondents filed separate affidavits in opposition. <o:p></o:p>In
her affidavit filed on 29th May 2019, the 3rd respondent
stated that the tenants that were ejected from the property were those she had
put in possession of the property and received rents from and that she ejected
them on the orders of the Rent Control Department. She also denied any wrong
doing, explaining that, it was rather the appellant who had commenced
development activities on the land.<o:p></o:p>Similarly,
1st and 2nd respondents in their respective affidavits
filed on 24th and 23rd October 2019 denied the
appellant’s allegations against them adding that the former was the one bent on
developing the land much to their detriment despite the pendency of his own
action in court and several warnings from the police against his conducts.<o:p></o:p>At
the hearing, the trial judge directed that, written submissions be filed on
behalf of the parties. From the record the written submission for the appellant
was filed on 9th December 2019 and the respondents’, 20th
December 2019.<o:p></o:p>Weeks
later, on 20th January 2020, an application was filed by Counsel for
the appellant, seeking an order of the court to call two witnesses “to
testify to the conduct of the respondents during this Christmas break.” <o:p></o:p>It
does not appear that the said application was determined by the Learned trial
judge before proceeding to deliver his ruling on the application on 18th
February, 2020. The ruling on appeal does not bear any decision or comment on
the application and we are not seized with any record of its determination one
way or the other.<o:p></o:p>In
his written submission before us, Learned Counsel for the appellant states that
he had indicated to the Learned trial judge the appellant’s intention to call
witnesses to testify to the conducts of the respondents and had later filed the
said a</main>