THE REPUBLIC vs. GRACE KORKOR (RESPONDENT) EXPARTE: SAMUEL ASAMOAH (APPLICANT) [2019]DLHC7647

Date	2019-09-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CR/542/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7647

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU J.

JAMES OWURA-MENSAH FOR APPLICANT

AKWESI BOSOMPEM FOR RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC7647
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>GRACE KORKOR<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE: SAMUEL ASAMOAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT 4), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT NO: CR/542/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JAMES
OWURA-MENSAH FOR APPLICANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

AKWESI
BOSOMPEM FOR RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG
OWUSU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>By his application the applicant herein is seeking
an order to commit the Respondent for Contempt of Court.<o:p></o:p>In the supporting affidavit the applicant alleged
the following facts:- The Respondent issued a Writ of Summons against him
claiming among&nbsp; other things a
declaration of title to land the subject matter of this suit.<o:p></o:p>He filed a Counterclaim in the said action.&nbsp; During the pendency of the action he applied
for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction to restrain the Respondent from
developing the land.&nbsp; The search results,
which showed that the injunction was granted, were exhibited as “PA2”.&nbsp; It
is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent was in Court when the Injunction
Order was granted and that at all material times she was put on notice and was
aware of exactly what she was asked not to do or engage in respect of the
subject matter of the suit by virtue of the Order of Interlocutory Injunction.&nbsp; He stated further that apart from the Injunction
Order the Respondent by a document which exhibited as ”PA3” undertook not to develop the land.<o:p></o:p>The Applicant complained that while the suit was
subsisting the Respondent continued with development on the land.&nbsp; He maintained that he has reliably been informed
that she is fast developing the land in disregard of the Court Order and
supervises the development night and day in order to overreach the decision of
the Court.&nbsp; Photographs showing these
developments according to him has been annexed to the application as “PA4” series.<o:p></o:p>It was contended that the Respondent’s conduct of
developing the land despite the Injunction Order amounts to Contempt of Court.<o:p></o:p>In answer to the Applicant’s affidavit the Respondent
deposed that she was not aware of the Injunction Order.&nbsp; That her then lawyer also never told her
about any such Injunction Order.&nbsp; That
her then lawyer also never told her about any such Injunction Order. She
pressed the point that she has great respect for the Court and that being
mindful of the consequences of disobeying any Court Order will never do
anything untoward to bring the sanctity of the Court into disrepute. She
explained that somewhere in on 2010/11, the Ga South Municipal Assembly took
her to the Jamestown Magistrate Court for not having a building permit.&nbsp; There she was made to thumbprint an
undertaking to prohibit her from constructing her building pending the determination
of the matter at the Magistrate Court. She was emphatic that the undertaking,
which was, annexed as EXHIBIT GKG “1”
has nothing to do with the instant Suit.&nbsp;
Furthermore she averred that the building in the photographs are old
ones that were left standing after the applicant demolished 3 of her chambers
and halls.&nbsp; It was her case that she only
roofed a chamber and hall when she was ejected from where she lived and did not
have enough money to rent an apartment.<o:p></o:p>In moving the application learned Counsel for the Applicant
urged this Court to commit the Respondent for disobeying the order of the Court
and to imprison her for interfering with the administration of justice.<o:p></o:p>For this part learned counsel for the Respondent emphasized
the fact that the Respondent was an illiterate and was not appraised of the
proceedings by her then lawyer when the injunction was granted.&nbsp; He reiterated the point that EXHIBIT
“PA3” has nothing to do with this Case. He submitted that what the Respondent
did was out of total ignorance and prayed the Court to exercise its prerogative
of mercy for the infraction of the law.<o:p></o:p>It is well established that any conduct, which
tends to bring the authority and administration of the law i</main>