Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs/Applicants have filed this instant application seeking to have Defendant/Respondent herein committed for contempt of Court. Plaintiffs/Applicants sued the Defendant/Respondent over a parcel of land at Anloga Sereme near Avete after
the Court of Appeal entered Judgment on their behalf in respect of the land for the following reliefs.
a. Declaration of title to the piece of land and described in paragraph 7 of
statement of claim.
b. Recovery of possession c. Damages for trespass
d. Perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendant from entering the said land in
dispute e. Costs.
Their case is that at while the matter was pending they filed a Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction on 31st March, 2022 to be moved on 7th April, 2022 to restrain the Defendant from putting up a building on the land. That the Defendant who was served with the application but did not file any affidavit to oppose the motion, however continued to work on the land as if nothing is at stake. That on 13th July, 2022 it was agreed that the application for interlocutory injunction should be moved during the vacation on Tuesday 16th August, 2022. That on the said date, the Defendant Lawyer’s failed to come to Court because he did not file affidavit in opposition to the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.
Their case is also that while the application was pending, the Defendant who now claims the land in dispute belongs to him, has allowed kiosk owners in the area to place kiosks on the land and collected monies from them claiming that it was his property. Plaintiffs state that being law abiding citizens, they want the matter to be directed to the High Court for Contempt against the Defendant. That the Defendant is boasting in town that he has taken over the land from the Plaintiffs and they cannot do anything. That the Defendant’s behavior is contemptuous of court thus they pray for the Court to attach the Respondent for contempt of Court. They attached Exhibit A being a picture of some kiosks along the road as the Kiosks Respondent allowed people to place on the land in dispute.
The Respondent in the suit states that he is vehemently opposed to the said Motion because the gravamen of the Applicants application as captured in paragraph 8 alleges that notwithstanding the fact that he had been served with a motion on notice for an injunction, Respondent selected to disregard same by causing kiosk owners to place
kiosks on the land to be injuncted. Responden