REPUBLIC v. OKYERE DARKO & ANOTHER
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DOTSE, JSC (PRESIDING)
- PWAMANG, JSC
- TORKORNOO (MRS.), JSC
- HONYENUGA, JSC
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS), JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Dotse JSC, resolved a procedural dispute arising from a land litigation between Lufus Owusu and Okyere Darko. After the High Court granted an interlocutory injunction, restored a dismissed suit, and later convicted Darko of contempt with a custodial sentence and fine, Darko sought review of the sentence, which was refused. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal against the substantive contempt ruling, which the Court of Appeal quashed, acquitting him. On further appeal by Owusu, the Supreme Court requested submissions on its precedent in Nii Kojo Danso II interpreting Order 42 of C.I.47. Applying that principle, the Court held that Darko’s review election foreclosed an appeal against the original decision; only the review ruling could be appealed. Consequently, the Notice of Appeal was void, the Court of Appeal’s decision a nullity, and the High Court’s contempt conviction and sentence were restored.
DOTSE JSC:-
This is an appeal by the Applicant/Respondent/Appellant, hereafter referred to as the Applicant against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 27th July 2017 which allowed the appeal of the Respondent/Appellant/Respondent, hereafter referred to as the Respondent against the judgment of the High Court dated 30th April 2015.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On the 12th of February 2015, the Applicant applied to the High Court, Accra for leave to commit the Respondent for contempt of court based on depositions in an affidavit deposed to by Kofi Dede, the lawful Attorney of the Applicant herein.
The facts germane to this case are that, the Applicant on the 7th day of March 2013 issued a Writ of Summons in the High Court, Accra against the Respondent claiming the following reliefs:-
a. Declaration of title to the parcel of land described in the writ of summons
b. Recovery of possession
c. General damages for trespass
d. An order directed at the defendant to reconstruct plaintiff’s fence wall that he caused to be pulled down or pay cost of same.
e. An order directed at the defendant to remove all structures that he caused to be erected or constructed on the land.
f. An order for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, his assigns, agents, workmen, servants and “landguards” from further developing or interfering whatsoever with the land in dispute.
References therein to the Plaintiff refer to the Applicant, whilst those to the Defendant refer to the Respondent.
On the same day the Applicant applied for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent either by himself, his assigns, agents, workmen, servants and “landguards” from further developing or interfering whatsoever with the land in dispute pending the final determination of the suit. The said application was opposed, however same was granted in a ruling delivered on the 23rd April 2013.
At the close of pleadings, three consecutive dates were set down for trial. However, on the said dates the Applicant failed to attend and the action was dismissed under Order 36 r 1 (2) b of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 C. I. 47 upon the application of the Respondent. The Applicant applied to the court for the restoration of the suit which application was granted and the said dismissal of the case was set aside. In a ruling dated 24th July 2014 the court restored the Applicants suit onto the cause list and fixed the 19th day of November 2014 for hearing.
It is interesting