RULING ON CONTEMPT APPLICATION
This is an application the plaintiff judgment creditor filed pursuant ostensibly to Order 50 of C. I. 47 praying the court to “commit the Respondents [herein]for Contempt of Court for woefully disobeying the Lawful Judgment of the Circuit Court, Keta …”. The Applicant claims that the Respondents herein have violated the judgment of the Circuit Court when they (Respondents)entered the subject matter land and planted cassava on a portion of the land the Applicant had caused his assignees to plough and had planted maize.
The Applicant claims further that the 2 nd Respondent erected red calico flags on the land with the intent to scare the Applicant and his assignees from the land that the Circuit Court had declared title in his favour.
The Applicant finds these acts as flagrant disobedience to the judgment of the Circuit Court, Keta and prays the court to punish the Respondents.
The application is accompanied by a 3-page 18-paragraph affidavit in support attached with exhibits - Exhibits GA1, GA2, GA3, and GA4. They are, respectively the judgment of the Circuit Court Keta as well as a ruling of this court dated 13 December 2022 that sought to direct one Seth Agbanyo to purge himself of contempt by removing “the rest of the blocks from the land today by 5 pm”. The other exhibits are an entry of costs award; an affidavit of non-service of the entry of the ruling on the said respondent Seth Agbanyo; and lastly, the Circuit Court’s order for possession of the land at Kpoglu.
In his 4-page 25-paragraph affidavit, the 2 nd Respondent opposes the nd application and denies the factual dispositions in the affidavit in support.
2 Respondent contends that the land upon which the applicants based their application devolved to him on the death of his father who inherited the same from his forefathers.
He adds that he had granted the land to one Theresa Akakpo who had also given it to the 1 st Respondent who for the past 15 years has been cultivating the land without any interference from anyone including the Applicant.
2 nd Respondent adds “[t]hat I have not been a party to the suit … which was before the Circuit Court”; neither was his name stated in the suit as a party nor mentioned in the judgment of the Circuit Court and that the exhibits attached to the application are processes he has no knowledge of nor had they been served on him.
He claims further that the applicant has not commenced any suit against him or his family f
