REPUBLIC VRS CHRISTOPHER ADZOYI (LD/1408/2017) [2024] GHAHC 240 (26 June 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GHANA (LAND COURT 7) HELD IN ACCRA ON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUIT NO. LD/1408/2017 THE REPUBLIC VRS CHRISTOPHER ADZOYI :: RESPONDENT EX–PARTE: NII LARYEA BOTWE II :: APPLICANT =================================================== R U L I N G On the 19th of March, 2024, the Applicant filed a Motion praying this Court for an Order of Committal, committing the Respondent to Prison for Contempt of Court. The grounds of the Application are that in Suit No. LD/1408/2017 at the High Court, Land Division, Accra, between the Applicant and the Respondent, he obtained an Interlocutory Injunction on 20th April, 2018 restraining the Defendant therein, her agents, assigns, privies and all those claiming through her from having anything to do with the subject matter land pending the final determination of the suit. It was attached and marked as Exhibit NLB “A”. It is the case of the Applicant that at the time of preparing the Court processes culminating into Exhibit NLB “A”, the Defendant in the substantive matter and the Respondent had trespassed onto the subject matter land and erected foundation blockworks and 1 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/1408/2027 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 26TH OF JUNE, 2024 starter pillars. The Defendant therein appealed against the Injunction Order up to the Supreme Court to no avail. The Applicant describes the Respondent who is a self-styled Pastor, as a son of the Defendant in the other suit and claimed to have gone onto the land to erect a structure up to the lintel level for religious purposes without any lawful authority from a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Applicant believes that the acts of the Respondent is a show of his utter disrespect and disobedience to the authority of this Court. The Application was opposed by the Respondent. It is trite that Contempt is Quasi-Criminal with the standard of proof no less than the criminal burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the unreported Judgment of the Supreme Court in THE REPUBLIC VRS. BANK OF GHANA & 5 OTHERS, EX PARTE BENJAMIN DUFFOUR, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/34/2018, DATED 6TH JUNE 2018, His Lordship Baffoe Bonnie JSC held: “The standard of proof in contempt proceeding is well settled. Contempt of Court is a Quasi- Criminal process which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is so whether the act complained of is Criminal Contempt or Civil Contempt …” (See also: REPUBLIC VRS. NII ACHIA II, EX PARTE JOSHUA NMAI ADDO [2015] 83 GMJ 7 @ 13, S.C., AKELE VRS COFFIE AND ANOTHER AND AKELE VRS OKINE AND ANOR (CONSOLIDATED) [1979] GLR 84–90 & AHMED MUDDY ADAM VRS. FRANK NUAMAH [2018] DLCA 4464). One common thing I discovered from the parties’ respective cases is that they spoke with different mouths. In simple terms, both the Applicant and the Respondent were not consistent. In the case of the Respondent, he claimed at paragraph 5 of his Affidavit in Opposition that he was not a party to the substantive suit in which the Order for Interlocutory Injunction was obtained and that the said Order was not served on him or brought to his attention. However, the same person at paragraph 4 therein stated that since the Plaintiff obtained the Order of Injunction on 20th of April, 2018, he has abandoned the substantive case which has been redundant and inactive for six good years. How could a person not being aware of the Order be able to state the date the Order was made and the fact that the substantive matter has been inactive for six good years? Also, at paragraph 6 of the Respondent’s affidavit in opposition, he deposed that the developments shown in the pictures exhibited by the Applicants are not on the subject matter land, but in the following paragraph, the Respondent 2 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/1408/2027 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 26TH OF JUNE, 2024 concedes that he has a “Church auditorium and orphanage on the land the subject matter of the suit.” While it should not be too difficult for me to consider the defence mounted by the Respondent as lame; being a quasi-criminal matter, there is the need for me to hasten slowly and be satisfied that the Applicant has sufficiently established the ingredients of contempt against the Respondent. The elements of Contempt as espoused by the Supreme Court in the case of REPUBLIC VRS SITO; EX PARTE FORDJOUR [2001–2002] SCGLR 322, which was alluded to by both Applicant and Respondent are: (i) There must be a Judgment or Order requiring the contemnor to do or abstain from doing something; (ii) It must be shown that the contemnor knows precisely what he is expected to do or abstains from doing, and (iii) It must be shown that he failed to comply with the terms of the Judgment or order and that his disobedience is wilful. Was the Applicant able to establish these elements beyond reasonable doubt? I am not sure, he did. From the word go, he succeeded in confusing the Court in proving the suit in which the Order was made. On this point, I reproduce some relevant portions of his Affidavit in support of his Motion here for its full effect: “2. That I initiated an action in my representative capacity against the Respondent in the High Court –Land Division, Accra in Suit No. LD/1408/2017 seeking certain reliefs therein. 3. That I obtained an Order against the Defendant on 20th April, 2018 restraining the Defendant therein, her agents, assigns, privies and all those claiming through her from having anything to do with the subject matter pending the final determination; same is attached and marked as Exhibit NLB “A”. While in paragraph 2 above, the Applicant refers to a suit he instituted against the Respondent (personally); in paragraph 3 and in other paragraphs such as 3 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/1408/2027 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 26TH OF JUNE, 2024 paragraphs 7 & 11, the Applicant seems to be talking about an Order made in a case against the mother of the Respondent. I am mindful that the burden on the Applicant to establish the order made is one of a proof beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be taken lightly. It is for this reason that I find the doubt about the suits in respect of which the order was made crucial. Being evident at this stage that there are doubts in the depositions of the Applicant surrounding the suit in respect of which the Order of Interlocutory Injunction was produced, proceeding to establish the second essential ingredient that the Respondent knew precisely about what he was expected to do or abstain from doing would be daunting. At paragraph 13 of the Respondent’s Affidavit in Opposition, he deposed that the Order did not restrain him from holding church programs. It may seem that the Order in Exhibit NLB “A” against Abigail Tulasi restrained her, her agents, assigns, privies and all those claiming through her from having anything to do with the subject matter pending the determination of this suit. If this is the Order, it would obviously have retrained the Defendants and her allied, including the Respondent from doing anything on the land and that will mean holding Church activities on it is also proscribed. Nonetheless, since the Applicant claims that the order he is relying on emanated from a suit he instituted against the Respondent, the precise nature of the Order made in that case has not been brought to the attention of the Court. The failure of the Applicant to cross the first two hurdles of the ingredients of contempt is enough for me to throw out the application. It may be observed that in Criminal or Quasi-Criminal cases, the accused or Respondent has no burden to establish his innocence until the prosecution or Applicant has made out a prima facie case against him, otherwise, the Court cannot demand answers from the accused or Respondent. In conclusion, I am not convinced that the Applicant succeeded to prove the guilt of the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. The Application to punish the Respondent for the Contempt of this Court is thus dismissed. 4 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/1408/2027 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 26TH OF JUNE, 2024 (SGD.) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT PARTIES: APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY NII KWASHIE RESPONDENT PRESENT COUNSEL: ALFRED KINGSLEY NIMOH ESQ., WITH KATHLYN COMPSON ESQ., HOLDING BRIEF FOR DAVID OWUSU TACHIE ESQ., FOR APPLICANT PRESENT CLARA EFUA AYANFUL ESQ., HOLDING BRIEF FOR JAMES ENU ESQ., FOR RESPONDENT PRESENT REFERENCE: CASES: 1. THE REPUBLIC VRS. BANK OF GHANA & 5 OTHERS, EX PARTE BENJAMIN DUFFOUR, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/34/2018, DATED 6TH JUNE 2018 2. REPUBLIC VRS. NII ACHIA II, EX PARTE JOSHUA NMAI ADDO [2015] 83 GMJ 7 @ 13, S.C. 3. AKELE VRS COFFIE AND ANOTHER AND AKELE VRS OKINE AND ANOR (CONSOLIDATED) [1979] GLR 84–90 4. AHMED MUDDY ADAM VRS. FRANK NUAMAH [2018] DLCA 4464) 5. REPUBLIC VRS SITO; EX PARTE FORDJOUR [2001– 2002] SCGLR 322 5 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/1408/2027 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 26TH OF JUNE, 2024