2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case before the High Court, the Applicants, Torgbui Duklu Attipoe and others, brought an application for contempt of court against Norfeli Ackuayi (1st Respondent) and another Respondent. The Applicants alleged that the Respondents violated an Order of Interlocutory Injunction granted on May 2, 2022, which restrained parties from developing a disputed land in Sogakope pending the determination of the substantive suit. The Applicants provided evidence of the Respondents erecting pillars and mixing cement on the land. Norfeli Ackuayi admitted to the construction but argued that the site was outside the disputed area, relying on a composite plan from failed settlement negotiations. The Court rejected this defense, citing the inadmissibility of settlement details, and found Norfeli Ackuayi guilty of willful contempt, fining him GHC 5,000. The 2nd Respondent was acquitted due to insufficient proof of knowledge of the order.
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Applicants filed the instant application seeking to have Respondents committed for
Contempt of Court. On 17th April, 2019, three Plaintiffs issued a Writ of Summons and a
Statement of Claim against the 1st Respondent herein and 5 other persons at the High
Court, Sogakope, claiming the reliefs endorsed therein. The case was titled Torgbui
Duklu Attipoe V Vrs: Norfeli Ackuayi & 5 Ors with Suit number E1/24/2019. The Writ of
Summons and the Statement of Claim were subsequently amended by the joinder of some
other Defendants, the amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim were attached
marked Exhibit AA “1” and Exhibit AA “1A” respectively. The 1st Respondent herein is
the 1st Defendant in the aforesaid case.
On 2nd May, 2022 the Honourable Court granted an Order of Interlocutory Injunction
restraining both parties, their agents and assigns from interfering in any manner
whatsoever with the land the subject matter of the dispute and building thereon pending
final determination of the suit, the said order of Interlocutory Injunction attached marked
Exhibit AA ‘2’
It is the case of Applicants that despite the pendency of the case and the grant of the Order
of Interlocutory Injunction the Respondents unlawfully entered the land with building
materials, erected corner pillars and commenced building activities. That when 2nd
Respondent was told of the pendency of the Court case, he said it was the 1st Respondent
who sold the land to him and that 1st Respondent assured him that he can build on the
land. Also that pursuant to the assurance given to 2nd Respondent by 1st Respondent,
corner pillars were erected on the land under the supervision of the 1st Respondent. That
Respondents also evinced the intention to commence other building activities by bringing
workers onto the land.
It is Applicants further case that on 25th April, 2022, 1st Respondent was on the land and
was captured with one of the workers mixing cement and sand on the land in preparation
for building activities. Attached were pictures of the Respondents’ activities on the land
showing the corner pillars and the 1st Respondent and one of the workers on the land
marked Exhibit AA “3” series according to Applicants. That 1st Respondent as the 1st
Defendant in the substantive case is aware of the pendency of the case and the grant of
the Order of the Interlocutory Injunction. Also that 1st Respondent was in Court when the
Court granted the Ord