Try asking the following...
RULING
RULING
Applicant has mounted this application under Order 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 praying for an order of committal for contempt against the two Respondents. Upon an oral motion to hear evidence by counsel for Applicant, I acceded to the request. This caused inordinate delay and I had to vacate my order for oral evidence.
The affidavit evidence adduced vindicated the vacation of my order for oral evidence as that would not have added anything at all save to increase expense and waste more precious time of the court. The grounds upon which the application has been launched can be gleaned from the affidavit and the supplementary affidavits that accompanied the application. Applicant claim that 1st Respondent instituted an action against him in Suit No FAL/623/14 for which he contested the claim of 1st Respondent in that suit.
With 2nd Respondent having been appointed by 1st Respondent as his attorney the suit which was a land matter commenced at the District Court, Mampong ended at the High Court, Koforidua. In the said suit, according to the Applicant, 1st Respondent applied for interlocutory injunction to restrain him but same was dismissedby the High Court. It is further deposed that 1st Respondent in the said land suit executed terms of settlement by which he committed to vacating the subject matter of the Applicant’s counterclaim and by perpetual injunction restrained himself, his agents, workmen, assigns and land guards from entering the land described in the terms of settlement.
Applicant further continue that the terms of settlement was filed at the High Court and that 2nd Respondent has full knowledge of the terms of settlement and the order of the High Court dismissing 1st Respondent’s application for interlocutory injunction. That whiles the matter was still pending in court, Respondents have gone to a portion of the land described in the counter claim as having been adjudged in the terms of settlement in favour of Applicant. Upon a complaint made to the Dodowa Police, according to the Applicant, 2nd Respondent claim that he only graded about 40 acres of the land by virtue of a power of attorney granted him by 1st Respondent.
There has also been an allegation that 2nd Respondent did not only grade the land but that it was done with land guards which he used to invade the land and that with the pendency of the matter in court, the actions of the Respondents makes mockery of justice and has prejudiced the pendency