THE REPUBLIC vs DR. SEEME TRIPATHI / DHANANAJAY & ANOR
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an application for contempt of court against the Respondent for allegedly violating a court order restraining development on disputed land. The Court examined the elements necessary for establishing contempt, including the existence of a clear order, knowledge of its requirements, and willful disobedience. The Court emphasized the quasi-criminal nature of contempt proceedings, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. After analyzing the evidence presented, including affidavits and photographs, the Court found that the Applicant failed to meet the high standard of proof required in contempt cases. The Court noted the lack of clear evidence showing ongoing development after the injunction and dismissed the application, highlighting the importance of unambiguous proof in contempt proceedings.
The present application seeks to invoke the powers of this Court under Order 50 of CI 47 to punish the Respondent herein for contempt.
The basis for the Applicant’s prayer can be found particularly in paragraphs 4 - 8 of the affidavits dated the 18th day of February 2018 and the supplementary affidavit of the 11th day of December, 2018 filed in support of the motion.
In sum, it is the case of Applicant that the Respondent is in flagrant breach of an order of this Court dated the 6th day of April, 2017 which, restrained the Defendants, its agents, assigns servants etc.
from entering, occupying or dealing in anyway with Plaintiff’s land which is the subject matter of a pending suit.
According to the Applicant, the Respondent has, in total disregard of the said order, entered upon the land in question and engaged in the development of same.
This includes the construction of a high wall to which a gate has been fixed in order to prevent onlookers from gaining access or seeing the nature of developments taking place on the said land.
Photographs marked EXHIBITS A, B and C have been attached to the application in proof of this contention.
The application is stoutly opposed by the Respondent.
The Respondent vehemently denies flouting the said injunction order or engaging in any acts calculated at bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
It is his case that the disputed land is only four (4) plots out of the twenty (20) acres of land his company, Pharmanova Industries Ltd. had purchased from the Osabunya family of Old Ningo.
He attached to his affidavit, photographs depicting construction of a wall on the land but maintains that this was undertaken long before the institution of the instant suit, when the Applicant had caused an extensive part of the said wall to be demolished.
It is his position that the Applicant has no basis for bringing this application and prays that the same be dismissed.
Now, I think it is well settled that this Court has the power to punish a person for the willful disobedience of its orders or for engaging in conduct that tends to prejudice the outcome of a suit or bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Court will however, only impose sanctions when such conduct is proved or established.
The case of REPUBLIC v SITO EXPARTE FORDJOUR (2001 - 2002) SC GLR @ 222 outlines the elements necessary to ground a contempt charge as follows: