THE REPULIC vs KWABENA NKANSAH EX PARTE: PAUL AMOO GOTTFRED

On the 8th day of December 2022, the Plaintiff/Applicant filed the instant Application praying the Court for an order committing the Respondent to Prison for Contempt of Court.

In support of the Application the Applicant contends he commenced the substantive suit, first against the 1st Defendant (then, the only Defendant) for the following reliefs:

a. A declaration that the Plaintiff remains the owner of the land the subject matter of the instant suit which is more particularly described in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim.

b. Damages for trespass.

c. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, workers, assigns, whomsoever or otherwise howsoever claiming through it, from interfering with the Plaintiff’s ownership, use and enjoyment of the land, the subject matter of the instant suit.

d. Costs including cost of this litigation.

e. Any other order(s) that this Honourable Court may deem just and proper.

On the 29th March 2022, the Honourable Court granted an order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendant (now 1st Defendant) its agents, lessees, assigns, workmen, whomsoever or otherwise howsoever described from interfering with the disputed land pending the final determination of the suit.

On the 24th of June 2022, the Respondent applied to be joined to the suit. In the Affidavit in Support of the Application, the Respondent contended that he acquired the subject land from the 1st Defendant in August 2021 (over 25 years since the acquisition by Plaintiff). His indenture in fact shows that he is a lessee of the 1st Defendant.

The Respondent on the 21st of October 2022, applied to the Court to set aside the Interlocutory Injunction to enable him work on the land. This Application was refused by the Court.

Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Respondent without any respect for the Court and or the authority of the Court, commenced and expedited his construction activities on the disputed land. Exhibit 2 series annexed to the Application attests to this. And that the Court will observe that before the Respondent was joined to the suit, the land had only been walled and no construction had commenced as per Exhibit 1 series. And that Respondent commenced his unlawful activities on the land after he had been joined to the suit and in fact more particularly when the Court refused to set aside the Injunction Application.

Counsel contends that the Respondent, being very aware of the subsistence of the instant suit; a