Republic Vrs Ladzaka And Another Ex-Parte Amekor (C13/30/2024) [2024] GHAHC 238 (26 June 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT DENU ON WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE 2024 BEFORE JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J 1 SUIT NO. C13/30/2024 } } } … 1 2 AXORLU DZADU (Sub’d by Reuben DZADU) GEORGE AMEKOR } } (Suing as heads of the Dzadu & Amekor Families of Kpoglu. PLAINTIFFS Versus 1 2 3 4 MIDAO AGBANYO SAMUEL AGBANYO AFATSAWO AGBANYO EBENEZER KUNYA } } } } … DEFENDANTS AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REPUBLIC Versus 1 2 STEPHANO BABY LADZAKA AGBE AHIALE } } … RESPONDENTS EX-PARTE Page 1 of 6 2 GEORGE AMEKOR } … APPLICANT Parties present Parties unrepresented by lawyers RULING ON CONTEMPT APPLICATION This is an application the plaintiff judgment creditor filed pursuant ostensibly to Order 50 of C.I. 47 praying the court to “commit the Respondents [herein] for Contempt of Court for woefully disobeying the Lawful Judgment of the Circuit Court, Keta …”. The Applicant claims that the Respondents herein have violated the judgment of the Circuit Court when they (Respondents) entered the subject matter land and planted cassava on a portion of the land the Applicant had caused his assignees to plough and had planted maize. The Applicant claims further that the 2nd Respondent erected red calico flags on the land with the intent to scare the Applicant and his assignees from the land that the Circuit Court had declared title in his favour. The Applicant finds these acts as flagrant disobedience to the judgment of the Circuit Court, Keta and prays the court to punish the Respondents. The application is accompanied by a 3-page 18-paragraph affidavit in support attached with exhibits - Exhibits GA1, GA2, GA3, and GA4. They are, respectively the judgment of the Circuit Court Keta as well as a ruling of this court dated 13 December 2022 that sought to direct one Seth Agbanyo to purge himself of contempt by removing “the rest of the blocks from the land today by 5 pm”. The other exhibits are an entry of costs award; an affidavit of non-service of the entry of the ruling on the said respondent Seth Agbanyo; and lastly, the Circuit Court’s order for possession of the land at Kpoglu. Page 2 of 6 3 In his 4-page 25-paragraph affidavit, the 2nd Respondent opposes the application and denies the factual dispositions in the affidavit in support. 2nd Respondent contends that the land upon which the applicants based their application devolved to him on the death of his father who inherited the same from his forefathers. He adds that he had granted the land to one Theresa Akakpo who had also given it to the 1st Respondent who for the past 15 years has been cultivating the land without any interference from anyone including the Applicant. 2nd Respondent adds “[t]hat I have not been a party to the suit … which was before the Circuit Court”; neither was his name stated in the suit as a party nor mentioned in the judgment of the Circuit Court and that the exhibits attached to the application are processes he has no knowledge of nor had they been served on him. He claims further that the applicant has not commenced any suit against him or his family for trespass to land, as the land he granted to Theresa Akakpo does not form part of Applicant’s family land and that he (2nd Respondent) has nothing to do with Defendants in that suit. 2nd Respondent contends therefore that the applicant has not obtained any judgment or order of the court against him. What then is the ground and the requisite proof of the instant application? I take notice of a process the Applicant filed subsequently on 21 June 2024 headed “Response to Affidavit in Opposition”. The said process that not only opposes the dispositions of the Respondents but also virtually repeats the fact of ownership of the land as declared by the Circuit Court, and further claims that the Respondents are not unaware of the judgment of the Circuit Court. The Applicant repeats his admission that Respondents were not parties to the suits concerning the subject matter land at the Circuit Court nor in the matter of contempt ruling by this Court, differently constituted. Page 3 of 6 4 Nonetheless, the Applicant avers that “[the Respondents] are part of the Agbanyo family and always accompanied the Defendants to Court … and knew everything that happened in the case before the judgment was delivered in [their] favour …”. According to the Applicant, during the pendency of the suit, Respondents always accompanied the defendants to court at Keta and that the Respondents are not unaware of the outcome of the suit at the Circuit Court. Indeed, according to the Applicant, the Respondents were in court the day the Circuit Court delivered its final judgment declaring the Applicant owners of the land. Per paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support, the Applicant claims that “we the applicants herein and these Respondents sat on the same pew together … in the courtroom when the judgment was read …” and that “… even though [respondents] were not [a] party to the suit [they] were openly telling the defendants in our presence that the defendants should not accept this judgement [as] the land belongs to the defendants”. I need to reiterate that the Respondents have denied these facts. Applicant avers further that “… at the appropriate time, the Applicant will lead and or provide cogent and or convincing evidence to prove that the Respondent’s Affidavit in Opposition has only been falsified and same is malicious”.1 I wonder the time the Applicant has in mind! There is no further or subsequent time for the requisite proofs in this matter. The time is now! Though the Respondents were not a party to the suit, they seem to have expressed an interest in the subject matter land at the Circuit Court. Per paragraphs 7 and 17 of the affidavit in opposition, the 2nd Respondent states that “the land upon which the applicant based the instant application belonged to my father” and “does not form part of the Applicant’s family land”. The law is that mindful of the ominous adverse legal consequences, any person who has an interest in a matter that he knows or ought to know is 1 See para. 12 of the Response to Affidavit in Opposition. Page 4 of 6 5 pending before the court must apply to join the suit to protect the interest or be held as bound by any adverse or negative outcome of the suit. The courts usually allow such joinder applications. The question however is, did the Respondents know or ought to know of the pendency of the suit at the Circuit Court concerning the subject matter land? Respondents deny the Applicant's claims in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support that they were aware of the pendency of the suit and were in court sitting on the same pew when the Keta Court delivered the final judgment on the land. I reiterate that the crux of the application; indeed, the factual basis cannot be found in paragraphs 7 and 12 of the affidavit in support and paragraph 6 the supplementary affidavit. That is, the Respondents do not just know of the pendency of the suit they also know the final judgment thereof. Respondents expressly deny knowledge of the pendency of the suit at the Circuit Court Keta. They further deny their presence or attendance at the court at Keta, including the claim that they were sitting on the same pew with the Applicant when the court delivered its final judgment on the suit. Respondents further deny telling the defendants in the presence of the Applicant in open court not to accept the court’s final verdict. Having denied what I deem as the crux of the application, the law as provided in the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) s.11 and 17 imposes on the Applicant the evidential duty of providing sufficient evidence, indeed better and further particulars of the above claims to avoid an adverse on the claims, and not just bare repetition of his allegations and claims. Indeed, being a quasi-criminal matter, the outcome of which may involve loss of liberties, the law demands that the Applicant establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly sufficient and convincing proofs that the Page 5 of 6 6 Respondents are familiarly connected with the defendant and thus presumed to know of the pendency of the suit the defendant lost. Sufficient proof of these crucial claims would have led to a presumption of a privity of interest in the subject matter land at the Circuit Court Keta against the Respondents, and further estoppel against the Respondent to be bound by the outcome of the Keta suit concerning the subject matter land. I have the calmness to hold that the Applicant has failed to establish the requisite proof in support of the charge. The application is therefore dismissed. Respondents waive costs. No costs award. Ordered accordingly. SGD Justice George Buadi High Court Denu. Page 6 of 6