Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
Before the Court is a Motion by Applicant to Commit for Contempt of Court the
Respondent. In this case, an Interim Order was granted against Respondent
restraining him together with his assigns and agents from developing, entering upon,
dealing with, alienating or interfering with the land in dispute for a limited period of
10 days on 21st June, 2023. Applicant attached exhibits showing the date on which the
interim order of this Court and an Application on Notice for Interlocutory injunction
was also served on Respondent, through his Lawyer (also through the Lawyer’s
secretary). Applicant also attached a Statement of Case in support which upon an
objection from Respondent’s Counsel being overruled, same stayed as part of the
record.
Applicant also attached photographs with works carried on by the Respondent after
the service of the Court processes. The said contumacious behavior or works carried
out were particularized in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the affidavit in support. The search
conducted indicates that the processes were served on the Secretary of the Lawyer
who had entered appearance. It is the case of Applicant that Respondent aware of the
pending application as the Lawyer entered appearance for him with proof of service
therefore, Respondent cannot pretend that he is not aware of the Orders of the Court
and the processes filed.
Counsel also submitted that Notice of the action pending before the honourable Court
and the application for interlocutory injunction yet to be determined, as per Order 25
Rule 1 of C. I 47, Respondent by working on the land in dispute while this application
is pending, Applicant contends that Respondent deliberately flouted the Orders of this
Court as it is prevalent in this jurisdiction. Counsel prays that the Court stamps its
authority to bring respect and dignity of the Judiciary into this community to curtail
the prevalence and the several cases of Contempt of Court as this is the only way to
maintain law and order in society.
Respondent per Counsel was opposed to the Application as per the Affidavit in
Opposition filed. Counsel submitted that as shown by the Search Report attached to
the Application as Exhibit WD0, the Order for Interim Injunction and the Motion for
Interlocutory Injunction were all served not personally on him, but through his
secretary on 23rd June, 2023 and that the said secretary upon receipt put the processes
on the file. That as soon as he got notice of the processe