AGYENIM BOATENG & 27 ORS v. S. K. BOATENG & ANOR, EX PARTE: AGYENIM BOATENG & ORS

DOTSE, (JSC):-

By their application before this Honourable Court, the Applicants herein, numbering about 28 and acting per Agyenim-Boateng are seeking an order to commit the 1st Respondent, S. K. Boateng and the 2nd Respondent Evelyn Akuffo Oduro (Mrs) 2nd Respondent for contempt of court and further order the 1st Respondent or both Respondents to pay the sum of GH¢392,062.90 into National Investment Bank, at Kumasi Central Branch or into court, pending the final hearing and determination of the substantive appeal by this court.

From the affidavit and statement of case filed by the Applicants, it is clear that there has been a long drawn legal tussle between the Applicants herein, therein Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants and the 1st Respondent herein, therein Defendant/Appellants/Respondent.

The 2nd Respondent herein had been attached to the present contempt application because of her position as the Manageress in charge of the National Investment Bank, Kumasi Central who is alleged to have flouted or wilfully disobeyed the order of this Honourable court.

FACTS LEADING TO THE APPLICATION

According to the Applicants, they are registered members of a company limited by guarantee called the Kejetia Traders Association, also known as Mighty 18. The 1st Respondent is the Chairman of the Association.

Sometime in 1993, the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) ordered the members of the Association, who were legitimately carrying on their business in Kejetia to quit their place of business as the Government of Ghana wanted to redesign and develop the area.

Consequently, the Association in collaboration with the KMA managed to secure a commercial property belonging to the State Housing Corporation at North Suntreso, Kumasi, for the construction of stores. It was agreed that the construction would be pre-financed by members of the Association who were interested in acquiring the stores by paying the sum of Two Million One Hundred Thousand cedis each at the time.

For one reason or the other, the KMA was unable to meet its part of the bargain to allocate the stores to the members of the Association which resulted in the successful institution of a suit against the KMA. The KMA was compelled by an order of specific performance to allocate the stores to the paid up members of the Association whose names were contained in a list prepared by the 1st Respondent, then the Plaintiff in that matter.

Some members of the Association who had taken possession of some of t