THE REPUBLIC v. ESI BOSOMPEM AND NANA OSEI a.k.aHAEL ATTOH AR MAH
December 19, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP, JUSTICE ABOAGYE TANDOH, HIGH COURT JUDGE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
December 19, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Yaw Dankwah Agyekum moved the High Court for committal of Kwesi Bosompem and another for contempt after he had sued them over title to a plot of land. He alleged that the respondents continued developing the disputed land during pendency of the suit and after service of his interlocutory injunction application, intending to change the land’s character and overreach the court’s eventual decision. A registry search confirmed service of the application on 7 April 2020. The first respondent denied interest or service; the second claimed ownership via a 2015 head lease regularized by the stool and said works predated the writ. Applying Supreme Court authorities and the Evidence Act’s burden of proof, Justice Aboagye Tandoh held that the respondents’ post‑filing development undermined the administration of justice even absent an order, proved contempt beyond reasonable doubt, convicted both, and imposed one month’s imprisonment with hard labour, issuing a bench warrant to enforce the sentences.
JUDGMENT
The Applicant on the 14th day of May, 2020 filed an application for an order to
commit the Respondents to prison for Contempt of court pursuant to ORDER 50
RULE 1 OF THE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES OF (C.I 47).
It is the case of the Applicant Yaw Dankwah Agyekum, that on the 31st day of
July, 2019 he filed a suit against the Respondents in this Honourable Court in the
matter of YAW DANKWAH AGYEKUM VS KWESI BOSOMPEM &
ANOTHER per Exhibit ‘1’. As a result of which the Respondents filed their
respective appearance on the 19th day of August, 2019 per Exhibit ‘2’.’
The Applicant further averred that after appearance had been filed by
Respondents, the Respondents started developing the land in dispute to change
the character of the land and to overreach the decision of the Court per Exhibit 3.
The Applicant also averred that, on the 3rd day of April, 2020, he filed an
Application for interlocutory Injunction against the Respondents to restrain them
from developing the subject matter during the pendency of the matter per
Exhibit 4.
According to the Applicant, a search conducted at the Registry of this Court on
the 7th of May, 2020 indicated that the Respondents were served with the
application for the Interlocutory Injunction on the 7th day of April, 2020 per See
Exhibit 5.
The Applicant stated that at the time of service of the application for the
Interlocutory Injunction on the Respondents, the level of development by the
Respondents on the disputed land as shown in Exhibit 4.
The Applicant averred that in spite of the application for the Interlocutory
Injunction being served on them, pending and having knowledge of the
pendency of same, the Respondents in flagrant disregard of the application for
the Interlocutory Injunction are speedily continuing the development of the
subjectmatterperExhibit6
In a supplementary affidavit filed on the 26th day of October, 2020 and 11th
day of October, 2021, the Applicant attached two exhibits to demonstrate
the extent of further development being done by the Respondents per Exhibit
SUP ‘1’,
Exhibit SUP ‘2’ and Exhibit SUP ‘3’.
Though the Applicant should have labelled his exhibits by letters but same is
adopted especially when the Respondents does not conflict with that of
Respondent in any way.
According to the Applicant, the conduct of the Respondents was wilful, and
calculated to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and in flagrant
disregard to the law an