THE REPUBLIC vs. ALHAJI IBRAHIM EX-PARTE: ANTWI BOSIAKO SENIOR [2023]DLHC16822

Date	2023-07-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E12/OHC/024/2023
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC16822

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE DOREEN GENEVIEVE BOAKYE-AGYEI

MS. FREDA OSEI-DARKO ACQUAH ESQ

MR. ROBERT ISHMAEL AGGREY-FYNN AMISSAH ESQ

[2023]DLHC16822
																																						<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>ALHAJI IBRAHIM<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;EX-PARTE: ANTWI BOSIAKO SENIOR<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KASOA-OFAAKOR]<o:p></o:p>&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; <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: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 4.5pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 4.5pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

MS. FREDA OSEI-DARKO ACQUAH
ESQ. FOR APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

MR. ROBERT ISHMAEL
AGGREY-FYNN AMISSAH ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE DOREEN
GENEVIEVE BOAKYE-AGYEI <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 4.5pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Before me is a motion on notice
praying the honourable Court to commit the Respondent to prison custody for
contempt of court. From the record
per the Exhibits, the Applicant caused a Writ of Summons to be issued against
the Respondent on 22nd September 2022. The Respondent filed his Defence
on the 18th of October 2022. On 20th February
2023, a motion for injunction was served on the Respondent and on 14th day of April 2023, the application
was granted and the Order was served
on the Respondent for which
a search at the Registry
indicated that the Order was duly served on the Respondent.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the case of Counsel for
Applicant that in spite of the Order, the Respondent is still working on the
disputed land and that they have attached various evidence being Exhibits H and
H1. Exhibits H and H1 shows a worker for the Respondent completing the
foundation beam. Exhibits H2 and H3 is the construction of the Respondent at
the foundation level. Exhibits H4 and
H5 shows a tipper truck off- loading sand unto the disputed land to continue
the project. Applicant’s Counsel
contends that from Exhibit D, the injunction application, there is a clear
difference between the exhibits, i.e. when the Respondent was served with the
injunction order and Exhibit H3. There has been an additional development,
there is a piece of wood attached to the foundation and Exhibits H3, H4 and H5 where the Respondent is off- loading the sand on the same disputed
property. Counsel asserts that Respondent only
denied the existence of their claim
but failed to