JUDGMENT OF ROGER KORSAH J.
This is an application by the defendant-contemnor to be allowed to purge his contempt and be released from prison.
The applicant is a defendant in a case pending before the circuit court. On the application of the plaintiff, an order of interim injunction was made by the said court restraining the defendant from continuing his building operations on the land, the subject-matter of the action. The defendant was present when the order of injunction was pronounced. But in complete disregard of that order, the defendant rushed to complete the building and not only put tenants therein but also installed himself as the owner and landlord of the premises.
An application to commit the defendant for contempt of the order of the circuit court was made to this court. Although service of the application for contempt was effected on the defendant, neither he nor his counsel was present when the court was moved to make an order committing the defendant to prison for contempt. He was committed to prison for six months.
[p.864]
Mr. Totoe for the contemnor says the contemnor has now learnt his lesson and has come on bended knees and with a contrite heart imploring to be allowed to purge his contempt. To purge his contempt he makes the following proposals:
(a) That all rents that have accrued from the building, the subject-matter of the injunction order, will be paid into court. And all future rents should be collected by the registrar of the circuit court.
(b) That in the event of the verdict going in favour of the plaintiff, he (the plaintiff) shall take the building on the land, if he so wishes, without making any payment whatsoever therefor. Or if the plaintiff does not want the said structure, the contemnor shall bear the cost of demolition, which should be carried out within a reasonable time after judgment.
Mr. Asumadu-Sakyi for the respondents opposes this application on three main grounds. He argues that this is not the usual application for a contemnor to be allowed to purge his contempt and that it has been brought on the supposition that the court erred in committing the defendant to prison and that is why by his motion the contemnor requests the court to review the order committing him to prison. Counsel definitely has the law on his side when he argues that, in any case, a review under Order 39 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), must, in the case of an interlocutory order, be brought within fourte
