CLELLAND v. ALEXANDRA
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- EDUSEI J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sought to have the defendant held in contempt of court for allegedly violating an interim injunction preventing further construction on a disputed property. The court's initial order in January 1966 was modified in May to permit limited construction to prevent collapse. The defendant completed the building and leased it, which the court found to be a violation, resulting in a fine and appointment of a receiver for rents.
JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.
In the instant proceedings the plaintiff is asking the court to call upon the defendant to show cause why she should not be committed to prison for contempt of court.
On 10 January 1966, the court, on the application of the plaintiff, granted an interim injunction in the following terms:
"It is hereby ordered that the defendant herein, her servants, agents or workmen be and are, hereby restrained from carrying on any work upon the parcel of land in dispute and/or in connection with the building thereon while the rights and entitlements of the parties herein still remain pending and undetermined."
Again on 25 May 1966 the court on the application of the defendant reviewed its order and varied it to enable the defendant "to continue with the building to the extent only that the said building may be saved from collapse or destruction by having doors and windows put in and the septic tank and soak-away duly completed." I consider this to be the essential part of the order reviewed and I need not refer to the whole order.
Counsel for the applicant has urged upon this court that as a result of the indulgence granted her by the court the defendant did take advantage of it and completed the building and got it ready for habitation, and has in fact let it out to a tenant in the person of one Lamptey. In his opinion, counsel for the plaintiff argued, this constitutes a violation of the court's orders of 10 January 1966 and 25 May 1966.
Mr. Acquaah, on the other hand, sought to show that there was no infringement of either of the two orders. He argued that by the varied order of 25 May 1966 which gave the defendant power to do certain things to the building, the doing of these things actually completed the building for habitation, and that the letting out of the building to a tenant was no contravention of either order.
The essential matter for me to decide is whether the defendant by renting the building did violate either of the two orders. There is nothing before me to ascertain the stage the building had reached [p.760] when the court varied its order and permitted the defendant to continue the building with a view to saving it from collapse. It follows therefore that I cannot find against the defendant that by putting in the windows and doors and constructing the septic tank and soak-away, she did complete the building and therefore has violated the court's order.
I have, however, to interpolate that actual service of a court's or