2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against a ruling that dismissed an appellant's application for committal for contempt against six respondents who disobeyed a court order to vacate certain properties. The appeal was dismissed largely due to the absence of a complete trial record and because the appeal grounds did not reflect issues decided by the trial judge. Key legal principles discussed include the requirement that appellate courts base their decisions on the trial record, that grounds of appeal must reflect issues in the trial record, and the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in contempt proceedings.
AYEBI J.A.
This appeal is against the ruling of a Kumasi High Court dated 1st February 2008. In the said ruling the trial judge purported to dismiss the appellant’s application for committal for contempt against the six respondents.
Looking at the record of appeal and the grounds of the appeal, a very detailed recapitulation of the facts leading to the ruling is not very important for the determination of the appeal. It is sufficient to only refer to the claim of the appellant and the orders of the trial court so far as they concern or affect the respondents.
Originally, the appellant as plaintiff sued the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) for the following reliefs:
(i) A declaration that the plaintiff who are lawful tenants for the defendant are to be given the first option in the allocation of the shops at Kejetia popularly known as Chop Bar Area.
(ii) A declaration that it was illegal and unlawful for the defendant to take over the construction of the building at Kejetia at a place known as Chop Bar Area which the plaintiff had built to an advance stage on the instructions of the defendant.
(iii) Recovery of possession
(iv) Damages for breach of contract
(v) An order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant its agents, servants and any person claiming title through it from alienating and/or allocating or permitting other people who are not members of the plaintiff’s Association to occupy or having any dealing with the disputed property.
Upon an entry of appearance and filing of a statement of defence by the defendant (KMA), the appellant prayed the court to enter summary judgment under Order 14 of C.I. 47 against the defendant. After attempts at settlement and even the intervention of the Asantehene failed, the court granted the appellant’s application for summary judgment on 22/11/06. Upon the grant of the application, the court made the following orders:-
(a) the plaintiffs as lawful tenants of the defendant Assembly are entitled to be put in possession of the store/shops at Kejetia Chop Bar Area whose construction they pre-financed within three (3) months
(b) the defendant Assembly shall not interfere with the plaintiffs in the development of the block they have started constructing
(c) if the defendant Assembly has expended any moneys in furtherance of the construction of the building, it shall handover same to the plaintiff after valuation of the extension works which the plaintiffs shall refund before a tenancy agreement is