THE REPUBLIC v. JOSEPH NYAMI STEPHEN & ORS
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ACKAH-YENSU J. A. (PRESIDING)
- BAFFOUR J.A.
- KOOMSON J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Administrative Law
- Constitutional Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Anthony Sakyi sued the Ga South Municipal Assembly in Suit No GJ 397/2019 seeking declarations of unlawful entry onto his land, an injunction, and damages. He later filed for committal for contempt against various municipal officials and a Member of Parliament, alleging they broke his wall, encroached twenty feet into his property, and persisted in works despite police intervention. The respondents argued they were non-parties and had not been served with any injunction or committal application, noting parliamentary service privileges. They described the area as a public access road under a government project with Amandarich Company Ltd through the Department of Feeder Roads, and said the Assembly removed unauthorised obstructions because Sakyi had no permit. The High Court dismissed the committal for failure to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected preliminary objections, found service defective (including a void substituted service order), emphasized the quasi-criminal standard of proof, relied on section 97 of Act 936 on municipal enforcement, and dismissed the appeal, awarding GH₵20,000 costs.
Baffour J.A:
INTRODUCTION
The High Court did not find it meritorious to commit the Respondents/Respondents for contempt of court based on an application for committal filed by the Applicant/Appellant. Not satisfied with the decision not to commit the Respondents by the court below, the Appellant is seeking a second view of the application he filed at the High Court. The writ which gave birth to the committal proceedings in the High Court is Suit No GJ 397/2019 instituled Anthony Sakyi v Ga South Municipal Assembly. In that suit the Applicant sought among others, a declaration that the Ga South Municipal Assembly had entered his land in an unlawful manner, an injunction and damages against the Assembly. The 1st Respondent is the District Chief Executive for the Ga South Municipal Assembly, the second, the District Engineer for the Ga South Municipal Assembly, the third and fifth, assembly members while the fourth is the member of Parliament. The parties would be referred to by the designations that they bore at the court below.
FACTS
It is worthy of note that none of the Respondents is a party to the suit instituted by the Appellant against the Ga South Municipal Assembly in suit No: GJ 397/2019 and it is out of that suit that the Appellant filed an application for interlocutory injunction, which the Appellant erroneously referred to as interim injunction, as the two are not the same. To Appellant, he caused the process to be served on the lawyer for the Municipal Assembly and yet the Respondents, as agents of the Assembly took steps to change the nature of the land by breaking a wall he had constructed, constructed a wall of their own twenty feet into the land of the Appellant and with preparations undertaken by the Respondents to bring earth moving equipment unto the land. To Appellant subsequent to the application for injunction, the 6th and 7th Respondents came to the site with a mob and ordered the workmen of the 1st Respondent to work on the land. That even the intervention of the Police based on a complaint from him did not persuade the 1st Respondents workers to halt work on the land.
It was the claim of the Appellant that the Respondents had shown disdain and treated the processes of the court with contempt. And by ordering the workmen of the 1st Respondent to work had evinced a determined will and intent to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and what he terms as “jejune”. And in that respect, he called for the committal of the