REPUBLIC v. NII ACHIA II

AKAMBA JSC:-

Joshua Nii Nmai Addo and Emmanuel Kwatei Quartey-Papafio the joint Applicants (hereinafter simply referred to as Applicants) are head and representative respectively of the Nii Kwatei Quarty-Papafio family.

The Applicants had on 18th December 2008 issued a writ in the High Court, Accra, against one Kwasi Owusu and the Nii Achia family in suit No. AL 44/2009 claiming a piece of land situated at Achiaman, near Amasaman in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Judgment was entered by the court presided over by Justice S.K Asiedu, on 5th September 2012 in favour of the Applicants herein.

The Applicants subsequently filed entry of judgment and same was served on the losing party i.e. the Defendants/Judgment Debtors.

The Defendants/Judgment Debtors filed an appeal on 2nd October 2012 against the decision. This was followed by an application for stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal. The trial court on 29th October 2012 refused to grant the stay hence the application was repeated before the Court of Appeal which also refused same on 21st May 2013.

The Respondent in this application is Nii Achia II, Achiaman Mantse. Following the dismissal of the application for stay of execution, the respondent filed an interlocutory appeal to this Court on 5th June 2013 against the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant the stay.

In this application, the Applicants contend that the Respondent herein, Nii Achia II, Achiaman Mantse committed contempt of this honourable court before which they have an interlocutory appeal pending. The circumstances of their contention are well deposed in paragraphs 9 to 22; and 28 to 35 of the affidavit in support of the motion dated 22/8/14. In summary, the Applicants recap an earlier application for contempt brought before the High Court arising out of the Respondent’s disobedience of the trial court’s orders and also disrespect of the Court of Appeal before which latter court an appeal and an application for stay of execution filed by his family were pending.

The High Court declined to grant the contempt prayed for. The Respondent, who refused to learn a lesson from the failed application for contempt continued with his utter disregard, scorn and contempt for the authority of the courts by continuing to enter, encroach upon, devastate and alter the face of the Applicants land, subject of dispute.

The Applicants further alleged that following the failure of the earlier contempt application based upon respondent’s denia