REPUBLIC v. MICHEAL AMARTEY LARYEA & OTHERS

GYAESAYOR, JA

In a ruling dated 13th day of January 2017 the High Court Accra, convicted and sentenced the respondent/appellant to five days’ imprisonment for contempt.

Not happy with their conviction and sentence for contempt, the appellants issued a notice of appeal dated 19th January 2017. The said notice of appeal is found at page 170 of the record of appeal (ROA). Additional grounds were filed and canvassed in the hearing of the appeal.

The grounds of appeal set out are as follows;-

i. The finding of the learned trial judge that the respondents had committed the act of contempt was against the weight of the evidence.

ii. The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof on him.

iii. The judge erred by failing to address the issue of the requisite notice of the order/judgment allegedly transgressed:

a. That he failed to properly consider the nature or import of the judgment or order.

b. He failed to advert his mind to the issue of personal notice of the judgment or order to the respondents in quasi criminal matters.

c. That he erred in deciding that newspaper publication was sufficient notice.

The facts of the case are that the applicant/respondent Nii Klu Anum, I who claims to be the Dzasetse of the Numo Nmashie family brought in this application against the respondent/appellant for interfering with their enjoyment of land decreed to belong to the family by the Appeal Court in a judgment dated 15th day of December 1982. The land the subject of the dispute is part of the land acquired for the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation Television station at Adjancote.

According to Applicant/Respondent on 26th November 2016 the court of appeal reversed the decision of the High Court and gave judgment in favour of the Numo Nmashie family.

The Applicant/Respondent claimed that while working on land belonging to the family on a parcel of land behind Special Ice Company, the appellant got land guards and police to interrupt them in their work claiming that they do not believe in the judgment of the court of appeal.

The Applicant/Respondent also claimed to have given notice to the whole world of their judgment and writ of possession which he subsequently obtained.

The Respondents/Appellants denied all those allegations against them claiming that they were not parties to the suit and also did not receive any notice in respect of the writ of possession. They claim that their grantor the Kweiman Stool was also not a party to the suit heard in the court of