REPUBLIC v. CONSTANCE AFFUL & ORS EX PARTE WILLIAM MENSAH
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- BARBARA ACKAH YENSU JA (PRESIDING)
- OBENG-MANU JNR JA
- RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal decision arises from contempt proceedings tied to a family land dispute. The appellant alleged that his siblings entered a house on the disputed plots, harassed tenants, and removed roofing sheets while the civil suit was pending. The High Court dismissed the contempt application, finding doubts in the evidence and concluding the appellant failed to meet the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard. On appeal, only the appellant filed submissions; the respondents did not. The appellant challenged the trial judge’s failure to decide a motion to call two witnesses and the weight given to police diary extracts. The appellate court held the undisposed motion was error but harmless because it sought to introduce new events outside the affidavit in support, barred by Order 50 rule 3(3). It agreed the police extract and photographs were insufficient and affirmed the dismissal, rejecting all grounds except a limited acknowledgment of error.
RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA:
The contempt proceedings on appeal before us ensued from a land suit involving, much regrettably, siblings and their mother.
The plaintiff in that suit, now the appellant before us, commenced the action initially against a brother and sister who are the 1st and 2nd respondents herein. Subsequently, his two other sisters together with their mother were joined to the action upon their application to the court. The 3rd respondent before us was one of the sisters in that application.
In the suit, the appellant had claimed that his late father, one Godfred Kojo Mensah who was also the father of five of his sisters including the 3rd respondent but excluding the 1st and 2nd respondents (presumably born to a different father), acquired the two plots of land, the subject matter of the suit for them. He, and the other children of the father had developed portions of the plots, taken possession and placed tenants on other portions. It was the enjoyment of his possession that the 1st and 2nd respondents started disturbing, necessitating the action in court in which he sought declaration of title and related reliefs, including damages for trespass and injunction.
The case of the defence on other hand was that, it was rather their mother (3rd defendant) who acquired the two plots of land, built on one for herself and gave the remaining one to all the children to develop for themselves. It was said that the appellant was the one rather stoking confusion in a bid to assume sole ownership of the plot.
Whilst the suit was pending and before actual hearing would commence, the appellant mounted the instant contempt proceedings against the three respondents praying the trial court to commit them for contempt of that court.
The basis of the application was that, during the pendency of the suit, the respondents entered the house and asked his tenants who he had put in possession to vacate or face their ejection by whatever means possible. It was alleged that when the tenants had refused to vacate, the respondents went to harass and threaten them. They also started removing the roofing sheets on the building to force the tenants to quit.
It was contended that the conducts of the respondents when they knew of the action and the reliefs he was seeking against them, amounted to an interference with the pending proceedings and a prejudice to the administration of justice hence, they were liable in contempt of court.
Resisting the application, the re