THE REPUBLIC v. ALHAJI IBRAHIM RESPONDENT; EX-PARTE: ANTWI BOSIAKO SENIOR APPLICANT

Before me is a motion on notice praying the honourable Court to commit the

Respondent to prison custody for contempt of court. From the record per the

Exhibits, the Applicant caused a Writ of Summons to be issued against the

Respondent on 22nd September 2022. The Respondent filed his Defence on the 18th of

October 2022. On 20th February 2023, a motion for injunction was served on the

Respondent and on 14th day of April 2023, the application was granted and the

Order was served on the Respondent for which a search at the Registry indicated

that the Order was duly served on the Respondent.

It is the case of Counsel for Applicant that in spite of the Order, the Respondent is

still working on the disputed land and that they have attached various evidence

being Exhibits H and H1. Exhibits H and H1 shows a worker for the Respondent

completing the foundation beam. Exhibits H2 and H3 is the construction of the

Respondent at the foundation level. Exhibits H4 and H5 shows a tipper truck off-

loading sand unto the disputed land to continue the project. Applicant’s Counsel

contends that from Exhibit D, the injunction application, there is a clear difference

between the exhibits, i.e. when the Respondent was served with the injunction order

and Exhibit H3. There has been an additional development, there is a piece of wood

attached to the foundation and Exhibits H3, H4 and H5 where the Respondent is off-

loading the sand on the same disputed property. Counsel asserts that Respondent

only denied the existence of their claim but failed to show evidence that the disputed

property is still the same after he was served with the Order.

On the part of Respondent per his Counsel who are opposed to the instant

application, their basis is that the Respondent has not been wilful or acted

disrespectfully to the Orders of the District Court. Counsel submits that when the

application was served on the Respondent, it had an irregularity, specifically, it

stated “application for perpetual injunction” and save for that they were not

opposed to an interim injunction. That the Respondent has dutifully stayed off the

subject property till date and they had seen the attachment by the Applicant,

specifically Exhibit H series. It is Counsel’s submission that it appears the dates have

been superimposed on the images as they appear inconsistent on each exhibit which

clearly shows that the dates are not contemporaneous with when the images were

taken.

Respondent c