Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant's case is praying this Honourable Court to commit the Respondents
herein for Contempt of Court. Applicants through the 1st Plaintiff filed an Affidavit in
support as well as a supplementary affidavit in support. All the Respondents also filed
individual Affidavits in opposition and one supplementary affidavit in opposition as
well.
THE FACTS
The facts of this case are that the Applicants caused a Writ of Summons to be issued
against the Defendants herein at this Court on 31st August 2021 for the following
reliefs.
i. Declaration of Title to all that piece of land situate and lying at Mafi-
Avakpedome known as Aklidekpo family farm land bound as follows:
• On one side with the Nyiwu Stream,
• On another side with the Votroevoe Stream,
• On yet another side with the Atiemoe Stream; and
• On the last side with the Akoto tribal land.
ii. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants, their privies, assigns, agents,
workmen etc from dealing with the land.
iii. General damages
iv. Costs including legal fees.
Subsequent to the filling of the Writ of Summons, the Applicants herein brought an
application on notice on the 7th day of September 2021 praying the Honourable Court
for an order for Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants as Respondents
whether by themselves, friends, allies, workmen, privies, assigns and any person(s)
claiming title through them from claiming the land in dispute and also from carrying
out any project of any nature on the said land until the final determination of the suit.
Upon hearing the submission of the Counsel for the Applicants, the Court granted the
application restraining both parties. The Court further ordered that “both parties
herein, their agents, workmen, assigns and privies and anyone claiming through them
are restrained from any new development on the land. No permanent structures are to
be put on the land pending the final determination of the suit”.
According to the Applicants, they being law abiding citizens resolved not to deal with
the land in any manner even though they had foodstuffs on same, ready for harvesting.
That the 2nd Respondent, not giving any credence to the Orders of the Court, went
ahead to engage the services of labour men to engage in the mining of oyster shells on
the disputed land. They make a case that the Respondents, their assigns, workmen and
privies also in willful disregard to the Orders of the Court are carrying out c