The Republic v Yeboah (CA/018/2025; G/182/2024) [2025] GHAHC 192 (10 July 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, SITTING AT SUNYANI, COURT ‘2’ ON THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE WINNIE AMOATEY-OWUSU, JUSTICEOF THE HIGHCOURT SUITNO: CA/018/2025 IN THE MATTER OF SUIT NO. G/182/2024 IREN [SIC] AMOAKOWAA ADDAI FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF HER SUBLINGS (BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE [SIC] AGNESS OPOKU AKA AMA NKRUMAH) H/NO. BAH/232/FF DORMAA AHENKRO VRS ESTHERYEBOAH AND Page1of21 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT OFCOURT THEREPUBLIC VRS. ESTHER YEBOAH RESPONDENT EX PARTE: IRENE AMOAKOWAA ADDAI APPLICANT JUDGMENT The Applicant through her counsel filed the instant motion on notice on 15th January 2025 praying the Court to attachthe Respondent for contempt of court. Following the Respondent’s Affidavit in Opposition filed on 3rd Page2of21 March 2025, the Applicant’s counsel sought, and was granted leave to file aSupplementaryAffidavit in Support, which he did on24th March2025. The pith of the Applicant’s case is that she is the plaintiff in suit number G/182/2024 currently pending before this Court by which she seeks against the Respondent, declaration of title to, and recovery of possession of a parcel of land situate at Dormaa Ahenkro sharing boundary with Asomdowe house, Anadwoyede Spot, By God’s Trading Enterprise container, Kumi Daa Street and Dormaa Hospital road; and perpetual inunction restraining the Respondent, her agents, assigns, etc. from interfering with the land in dispute. That she filed a motion for interlocutory injunction on 16th August 2024 to restrain “the defendant and respondent herein whether by herself her agent, privies assigns and all carrying on any activity making any developer having anything whatsoever to do relative to the disputed property or land or indulging in any conduct that seeks to interfere with the plaintiff/applicant’s possession and enjoyment of the disputed property.”[sic] See Exhibit KB. That, notwithstanding service of the writ of summons and motion for Page3of21 injunction on the Respondent, she is still developing the project as at 19th December 2024 in total disrespect, insult and flagrant abuse of the pending proceedings and application. See Exhibit KC, and Exhibit KD which is the Proof of Service by a bailiff. She asserts that the Respondent’s conduct is an affront to the integrity of the Court as well as law and order and that the purported acts of the respondent have brought the efficacy of the court system into disrepute and exposed the administration of justice topublic ridicule and the Respondent ought tobe committed for contempt untilshe purgesherself. The Respondent is opposed tothe instant application. Itis herdefence that upon service of the Applicant’s motion for interlocutory injunction on her on 16th August 2024 and the Supplementary Affidavit in Support on 22nd October 2024, she was advised by her counsel not to continue with the project on the land in dispute, which advice she has strictly complied with and has not undertaken any further work on the project. That the Applicant’s motion for injunction seeks to restrain not only her but her agents, assigns, privies, workmen etc. That, the photographs exhibited by Page4of21 the Applicant and marked Exhibit KC is a building which she neither knows where it is situate nor its identity. That, the building depicted in Exhibit KC does not have any identifiable feature to indicate any link or connection between the class of persons mentioned to be bound by the injunction application. That, she has towering respect for this Court and will not do anything that treats its orders with disdain and or disrespect and further that, as a law-abiding person who respects the rule of law, she will never do anything to poison the stream of justice to warrant the present application. She says the application lacks merit and prays it be dismissed with punitive cost. In the Applicant’s Supplementary Affidavit, she denied the Respondent’s assertion that she stopped any further development on the land in dispute upon service of the injunction application on her. She said Exhibit KE and KF, are pictures taken after service of the injunction application on the Respondent depicting the ongoing construction by the Respondent. That, the dates on the photographs exhibited show when they were taken. The Applicant says the Respondent’s conduct after the service of the Page5of21 injunction application onher has undermined the administration of justice and istantamount tocontempt ofcourt. Arguing the motion, counsel for the Applicant relied on the depositions contained in the Affidavit and Supplementary Affidavit filed for and on behalf of the Applicant and cited in support, the Supreme Court decision in Aryeetey v. Agbofu II & Anor [1994-1995] 1 GBR 250. He maintained that their search disclosed that while the injunction application which per Exhibit KD was served on 19th August 2024 was pending, they have photographs which show that on 2nd September 2024, 19th December 2024 and 18th January 2025, the Respondent was busily undertaking the construction with her agents. See Exhibit KF, KC and unmarked photographrespectively. Opposing the motion, counsel for the Respondent argued that contempt is a quasi-criminal action and the standard of proof is not different from that prescribed under Ghanaian criminal jurisprudence. As such, it requires strict proof.He referred toSections 13(1), and 11(1) and (2) of the Evidence Page6of21 Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). He relied on the depositions contained in the Respondent’s Affidavit in Opposition and argued that Exhibit KF did not enhance the Applicant’s case in anyway. He referred to Majolagbe v. Larbi [1959] GLR 190-195, emphasis on the second paragraph of page 192, per Ollennu J (as he then was). The crux of his argument is that Exhibit KC and KF do not have any link or nexus with the parties mentioned in the injunction application to be bound by it. He argues that none of the pictures can proveaffirmatively that anyofthe personsis the Respondent orany ofher agentsor any person claiming title through her. He argues that it is a basic principle of the law of evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof bears the burden to produce the required evidence of facts in issue that has the quality of credibility and that short of this, the claim must fail. He said the Respondent is a law-abiding citizen who respects the rule of law and will not under any circumstance disrespect the orders of the Courtorany document emanating fromtheCourt. He prayedthe Courtto dismiss theapplicationfor lack ofproof. Inthis Judgment, I havegiven due consideration tothe affidavit evidence Page7of21 of the parties, the oral arguments urged on the Court by the respective counsel, statutes and the legion of judicial authorities on contempt of court. The High Court’s power to commit for contempt is statutory, stemming from Article 126 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 36 (1) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), with the procedural rules for invoking the said jurisdiction provided for in Order 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I 47). This power seeks to safeguard the authority and dignity of the judicial process and punish conduct that tends to bring the administration ofjustice into disrespect ordisregard. In Republic v. Numapau, President of the National House of Chiefs and Ors; Ex parte Ameyaw II (No. 2) [1999-2000] GLR 283, the Supreme Court defined contempt of court as: “In brief, contempt is constituted by any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the dignity of the Court or respect of the authority.” Also, in Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex parte Laryea Page8of21 Mensah [1998-99] SCGLR 360 at page 368, the Supreme Court had this to say: “By definition, a person commits contempt and may be committed to prison for willfully disobeying an order of court requiring him to do any act other than the payment of money or abstain from doing some act; and the order sought to be enforced should be unambiguous and must be clearly understood by the parties concerned.” See also Republic v. Sito I; Exparte FordjourI [2001-2002] 1GLR322. Where there is a pending application, such as an application for interlocutory injunction, any act that seeks to do the very thing that the application seeks to restrain or prevent, will also amount to contempt of court. In Republic v. Moffat & Ors; Ex parte Allotey [1971] 2 GLR 391, the Respondentswent ahead to install a new Sempe Manche despite being aware of the pendency of the Applicant’s application for an order of prohibiting against them to restrain them from outdooring their candidate. Abban J (as he then was) at page 396 held that “It is well established that any conduct which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with any pending litigation is a Page9of21 contempt of court. So that once the respondents had become aware of the pendency of the motion before the High Court, and which motion gave them notice in clear terms of the court's intention to inquire into the matter and to decide whether or not they should be prohibited …, any conduct on their part which was likely to prejudice a fair hearing of that motion or was likely to interfere with the due administration of justice, would amount to a contempt of court, absence of an interim order for stay notwithstanding.” Also, in Aryeetey v. Agbofu II & Anor [supra], the Supreme Court held that “The applicants, having been served with the application deliberately stole the match by dicing the very act that the motion sought to restrain…. Once the applicants had become aware of the pendency of the motion, any conduct on their part that was likely to prejudice a fair hearing of the notion was tantamount to contempt.” See also The Republic v. The Bank of Ghana, The Governor (Bank of Ghana) & 4 Ors; Ex parte Benjamin Duffuor, Civil Appeal No. J4/34/2018 dated 6th June 2018 (unreported) where the Supreme Court held as follows: “Contempt of Court may rise where a party knowing that a case is sub judice, Page10of21 engages in an act or omission which tends to prejudice or interfere with the fair trial of the case despite the absence of an order of the Court.” I must quickly add that the Supreme Court through the majority decision in the recent case of Vincent Ekow Assafuah v. The Atttorney General, Writ No. J1/18/2025 dated 8th May 2025 (unreported), laid down an exception to the rule in the Ex parte Allotey case where the pending application seeks to restrain the performance of a statutory or constitutional duty. Kulendi JSC in his concurring majority opinion expressed himself as follows: "In the premises, we find that, in cases involving the discharge of constitutionally or statutorily mandated functions by specifically designated actors, be they, statutory bodies, public offices or individuals empowered by law so to act, it would be utterly imprudent to adopt a blanket rule that mere service of an application for interlocutory injunction suffices to halt constitutional or statutory action which presumptively, would inure to the collective interest of the public. We further hold that in such cases, Page11of21 nothing short of an express judicial grant of an injunction would suffice to restrain a constitutional or statutory duty bearer whose actions are presumptivelyin line withconstitutional orlawfulmandates.” Because contemptofcourt is aquasi-criminal offence andthe punishment for it may include a fine or imprisonment, the standard of proof required of the Applicant is proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. Thus, the Applicant must first make out a prima facie case against the Respondent before the Court would turn to consider the defence put forward by the Respondent. See Kangah v. Kyereh & Ors [1979] GLR 458; Republic v. Numapau, President of the National House of Chiefs [supra]. Although the Respondent in a contempt application is not required to prove his or her innocence, he or she may run a risk of non- production of evidence and or non-persuasion to the required degree of belief when he or she is called upon to mount a defence. See Mallam Ali Yusuf Issah v.The Republic [2003]DLSC2390. Page12of21 From Exhibit KB, there is no dispute that on 16th August 2024, the Applicant, as plaintiff in a substantive suit against the Respondent, defendant therein, filed a Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction seeking an order of the Court to restrain the Respondent by herself, her agents, privies, assigns and all persons carrying on any activity, making any development orhaving anything whatsoever todo relative tothe land in dispute pending the final determination of the suit. There is further no dispute that the Respondent was served with the application for injunction on 19th August 2024. At this point, I must state that the correct title of the substantive suit in which the injunction application giving rise to this contempt application was filed is suit no. C1/182/2024 and not G/182/2024. It seems the handwriting of the staff who registered and filed thecase is what has created the confusion. In support of the Applicant’s case that the Respondent and her agents have continued with the ongoing construction on the land in dispute despite being aware of the pendency of the injunction application, the Applicant tenderedExhibit KC,KE and KF. Page13of21 Exhibit KF taken on 2nd September 2024 at a time which is not clear, depicts the building that the Applicant claims to be the Respondent’s ongoing building project on the land in dispute. The land on which the ongoing construction is taking place abuts a road. It can be seen from Exhibit KF that only the ground floor has been constructed and the same is being flowed. There are heaps of sand, gravels and bags of cement on site as well as workmen busily working. Exhibit KC taken on 19th December 2024 taken at 02:22 p.m. also depicts the said building with the first floor constructed. There are heaps of sand and packs of concrete blocks on site as well as workmen busily working. Furthermore, Exhibit KE taken on 18th January 2025 at 01:21 p.m., shows ongoing construction ofthe second floorwith two menstanding there. The gatesofthe shops on the ground floor have been fixed. There are also packs of concrete blocks seen at the side of the building and at the front is a heap of sand and a black watertank. Page14of21 Forming part of Exhibit KB is the photograph depicting the Respondent’s building project on the land in dispute. The photograph which is a photocopy is dark and thus, unclear. The only visible things thereon are two poles. Since the substantive matter from which the instant contempt application springs, and in respect of Exhibit KB was originally filed is pending before me, I consider it proper to resort to the docket housing the substantive matter, suit number C1/182/2024 to evaluate the photograph attached in support of the injunction application. I am aware that the then honourable Chief Justice, Justice Anin Yeboah in a Circular dated 8th November 2022, directed Registrars of Courts where a contempt application arises in pending proceedings, to assign the title of the pending substantive matter to the contempt application and place the contempt application on the same docket as the substantive matter before the same judge. It is my thoughtfulopinion that the directive is not onlyto cure delays associated with hearing such contempt applications when they are placed before different judges, but also enable the Court access processes filed and orders and directions made in the substantive matter which may have bearing on the contempt application. Since a contempt Page15of21 application seeks to protect the dignity and integrity of the judicial process, I do not think the Court will be justified to act oblivious of the processes filed, and orders made in the substantive matter from which the applicationemanates, asin this case. From the docket of the substantive matter, it will be observed that the photograph forming part of Exhibit KB was taken on 13th August 2024 at 11:41 a.m. It depicts a building on the land in dispute whose ground floor has been constructed. Workmen are seen atop the ground floor. The land in dispute on which the building project is situate abuts a road and two utility poles and a kiosk can be seen in front of the building. A closer look will reveal a nearby pharmacy with the inscription JOJO Pharmacy. A comparison of the photograph taken on 13th August 2024 and Exhibit KE takenon 18th January 2025 reveals they are connected to the same building project, save that in Exhibit KE, the building has progressed from the ground floor to the construction of the second floor. The inscription JO Pharmacy can be seen on the nearby pharmacy indicating it is the same pharmacy showing in the photograph forming part ofExhibit KB. Further, Page16of21 the kiosk can be seen in Exhibit KE. I therefore find as a fact that the building on the land in dispute which at the time the Applicant filed the injunction application was at the level of the ground floor has progressed tothe construction ofthesecond floorasat 18thJanuary 2025at 1:21p.m. There is no doubt that the photographs thoroughly evaluated are proof of the continued construction works between 2nd September 2024 and 18th January 2025, while the injunction application served on the Respondent on 19th August 2024 was still pending. It is common knowledge that a person (principal) who desires to construct any type of building will normally engage various artisans who possess the requisite skills to undertake the construction. The principal delegates the work to the artisans to act on his or her behalf. These artisans work upon the instructions of the owner of the project, be it direct instructions or not. Thus, the artisans are agents of the person on whose instructions they work (the principal) and their actions are deemed to be the principal’s. In this case, the workmen can be seen in Exhibit KC and KF undertaking various tasks towards the ongoing construction of the building. The only Page17of21 reasonable inference to be drawn from the photographs is that the workmen are working upon the instructions of the Respondent and the Respondent must be held responsible for their conduct. Section 18 (2) of NRCD 323 defines an inference as a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in theaction. Being mindful that this Court heard and ruled on the inunction application on 4th March 2025 restraining both parties from dealing or interfering with the land in dispute until the final determination of the case, I find that the Applicant has established a prima facie case against the Respondent to the effect that she caused her agents to continue with the construction of her building project on the land in dispute while the injunctionapplicationwas stillpending. The Respondent’s defence is an outright denial of the Applicant’s claims. Since the Respondent claims she does not know the identity or location of the building depicted in Exhibit KC and KF but has, at the same time, Page18of21 admitted she had an ongoing building project on the land in dispute and that when the application for injunction was brought to her notice, her counsel advised her not to continue with building project, which she has strictly complied with, it was expected that she would produce relevant evidence of the different land housing her building project indicating its current stage to disprove or raise doubt about the copious evidence adduced by the Applicant but she failed to do so. The Respondent’s claim further that Exhibit KC does not show any identifiable feature linking or connecting it to the class of persons mentioned in the injunction application to be bound by it is untenable since the workmen are her agentsand their actions aredeemed hers. I find that the Respondent has failed to raise reasonable doubt about her guilt and I find her liable for contempt of court and convict her accordingly. In passing sentence on the Respondent, I am mindful of the mitigation plea advanced by counsel for the Respondent for and on her behalf and Page19of21 the submission by Applicant’s counsel. Indeed, the Respondent herself admitted in her affidavit evidence before this Court that the injunction application was brought to her attention by her lawyer and as a consequence, she was advised to halt the construction, which she did. Therefore, counsel for the Respondent’s claim that she did not know the implication of an injunction application is untenable. Despite being mindful of the mitigation plea and submission made in favour of the Respondent, I am more mindful of the need to protect the dignity of the Court and the judicial process. This Court does not mince words deprecating the Respondent’s conduct of brazenly continuing with the construction of her building project on the land in dispute despite the pending injunction application. By her conduct, the Respondent has demonstrated to the Court she has no regard for the legal process and the administration ofjustice as a whole. She deservesto be punished such that it would deter her future conduct and likeminded persons. Against this backdrop, I sentence the Respondent to 7 days’ imprisonment and a fine of GH¢10,000, in default serve a month’s imprisonment. Cost of GH¢5,000 awarded infavoroftheApplicant against the Respondent. Page20of21 SGD. WINNIE AMOATEY-OWUSU JUSTICEOF THE HIGHCOURT PARTIES: 1. APPLICANTPRESENT 2. RESPONDENT PRESENT LEGALREPRESENTATION: 1. KWADWO ADU BOSOMPEM, ESQ., FOR THE APPLICANT PRESENT 2. BENJAMIN KUSI ADOMAH, ESQ., FOR THE RESPONDENT PRESENT Page21of21