2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
CHARITY A. Asem (Mrs.), J., of the Ghana High Court, adjudicated a contempt application brought under Order 50 of CI 47 by an applicant alleging that a respondent violated an interim injunction issued by the District Court, Vakpo, on 22 September 2020 restraining dealings with a disputed parcel of land at Vakpo. The applicant claimed the respondent continued construction and tendered exhibits, including the injunction order, a district court record, a motion affidavit with a black-and-white photo (Exhibit DB1), and a colored photograph (Exhibit 5). The respondent filed an affidavit in opposition, denying responsibility for the works depicted and arguing that specific acts must be proved. Applying the quasi-criminal standard of proof and requiring a prima facie case, the court found the photographic evidence unclear, undated, and lacking probative value. Concluding that no willful disobedience was proved, the court dismissed the motion, acquitted the respondent, and awarded costs of GH5,000.
JUDGEMENT
The applicant herein invoked the jurisdiction of this court against the Respondent on a
Motion for an Order for Committal for Contempt of Court under Order 50 of CI 47 of the
High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004.
It is the case of the applicant that the District Court, Vakpo on the 22nd day of September
2020 under its hand gave an Interim Injunction restraining the defendant from dealing
with the disputed land till final determination of the case. Please see Exhibit ‘2’ attached.
Secondly, the defendant/respondent is aware of the said order and knows what to do and
refrained from doing.
Thirdly, that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the orders of the court, the conduct
of the respondent is deliberate and calculated to ridicule the authority of the court and to
undermine the smooth administration of justice.
The facts leading to the above order Exhibit “2” is as a result of a legal tussle over a piece
of land situate at Vakpo between the applicant and the respondent herein pending at the
District Court, Vakpo.
The relevant Exhibits are;
Attached to the application are;
Exhibit “1” -
Exhibit “2” – Order for Interlocutory Injunction made on the 22/9/2020.
Exhibit “3” – Brief record of proceeding from the District Court.
Exhibit “4” – The Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction filed at the trial court.
Affidavit in support and a black and white photograph marked as Exhibit
“DB1”.
It should be explained that Exhibit “DB1” was the stage the building was when the
restraining order was made in September 2020.
Exhibit “5” – A photograph of structures (houses) and image of a foundation of a sought;
in colour photograph.
Counsel for applicant in his written address filed on the 8/06/2022, contended that for the
respondent with full knowledge of Exhibit “2”, yet continued the construction work on
the disputed site has amply demonstrated that respondent has indeed envised willful
and intentional defiance of the lawful order of the District Court and is liable to be
committed to Contempt.
The respondent per his affidavit in opposition filed on the 14/11/2022 has denied flatly
any wrong doing.
According to him, he is not responsible for what appears in Exhibit “5”. That the
applicant should have attached the names of the workmen to tell the court who they are
working for.
Further that in an application such as Contempt of Court the acts of the contemnor must
be proved but not impute acts. He prayed the applica