JOSEPH OKLEY v. DEVTRACO LTD & 1 OR. & LAND COMMISSION
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU M., (PRESIDING)
- DORDZIE, J.A.
- GYAN, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an application for contempt filed by the 1st Defendant/Appellant/Applicant against the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent for allegedly violating a stay of execution order. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application on two grounds. Firstly, the court found the application incompetent because it should have been filed before the trial court, as the record of appeal had not yet been transmitted to the Court of Appeal. Secondly, the court held that the applicant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had violated the stay order by developing the disputed land. The court emphasized that contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, require strict proof. The court also noted that the evidence presented (photographs) lacked clear dates, creating doubt that benefited the respondent. The ruling highlights important principles regarding the proper forum for filing applications during the appeal process and the standard of proof required in contempt proceedings.
RULING
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
At the court’s sitting on 4-2-2015, the 1st Defendant/Appellant/Applicant moved this court to punish the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent for willfully disobeying the orders of this court and thereby putting the administration of justice into disrepute.
The basis of the applicant’s application is that sometime 20-5-2014, this court differently constituted stayed execution of the judgment of the High Court in respect of this matter pending the final hearing and determination of the appeal filed. The Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent in spite of this court’s order stated above, has proceeded to sell the vacant plots in front of their properties to third parties who have begun to develop the land in spite of warnings and protestations from the 1st Defendant/Appellant/Applicant. It is the case of the applicant that it reported the matter to the police who advised the respondent and his purchasers to desist from any further development on the land which advice the respondent and his purchasers have ignored hence this action. The applicant attached Exhibit ‘C’ series, which exhibits are photographs of the state of the land at the time stay of execution was granted and at the moment just to show the haste with which the respondent and his purchasers are developing the land in dispute. See paragraphs 6 – 11 of the Affidavit in support.
The Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent opposed the application and filed affidavit in opposition to that effect. He invited us to dismiss the application as being incompetent. His reason being that, by the combined effect of Rule 21 and 28 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (as amended) C.I. 19, this application ought to have been filed before the trial Court. This is because the record of appeal has not yet been transmitted to this court. Consequently, this application is incompetent and same ought be dismissed. On the applicant’s complaint that the respondent and his purchasers are developing the disputed land, counsel for the respondent referred to exhibit ‘A’ attached to the affidavit in opposition and submitted that, the respondent has not gone onto the disputed land after this court granted the applicant’s application for Stay of Execution on the 20-5-2014. The respondent concluded that he has not violated any order of this court as no activity is going on on the land. Counsel for the respondent therefore invited us to dismiss this application.
Order 21 of the Court of Appeal Rules, C.I. 19 provides a