GH - THE REPUBLIC vs JOYCE DARKE & ANOR

This is a contempt proceedings brought against the respondents which was filed on the 19/04/2023. The parties in this matter are siblings who are in fierce battle for their late parents’estate.

Under normal circumstances this disputes should have been long resolved but much as the court tried to help, the deeper the issues get as these uncompromising siblings choose the way of the court, litigation.

There are involved in this litigation six blood siblings – 5 females and one male.

Their late father was Mr. Darke the owner of St. Prospers College, Ho; who together with his wife joined the silent majority many years ago but the noises being generated by their off springs in his compound I have no doubt had kept, I believe their soul awake till date.

The legal battle that begun between the parties in a suit entitled Humphrey Darke &Anor.

V. Joyce Darke & Anor.

Suit No. E5/03/2021 which is currently pending before the court herein.

I have never set eyes on the 1 st plaintiff herein.

Not once had he appeared in this court.

The conflict in Suit No. E5/03/2021 is pivoted on the running of the school St. Prospers College left behind by their late father.

In the cause of the conflict stemming from accusation and counter accusations of misappropriation and sideling of some beneficiaries, the court made variation to the existing Letters of Administration which was in the names of only the respondents herein to include the present applicant/Respondent.

This court in order to restore harmony in the running of the business of the school with its primary aim of protecting the interest of Parents and students who are the losers in the conflict, appointed neutral third party to assist in collection of school fees (the main issue in contention). The neutral was to make comprehensive account from time to time in terms the order to the court.

All the parties were thus warned to refrained from collecting monies from students.

The applicant who is an administer beneficiary of the estate, also a teacher at the school brought the instant application for contempt against the defendants/respondents herein and alleged that contrary to the strict orders of the court, the defendants/respondents have flouted the court’s orders and engaged in fees collection from students and thus are in contempt of the court.

Upon service, counsel for the respondents moved the court upon preliminary legal objection to the proprietary of the instant application on the basis that the applic