By Laudia Sawer
Tema, June 05, GNA – A Tema High Court (Land Division), presided over by Her Ladyship Malike Awo Woanyah Dey, has cautioned the management of the Devtraco Woodlands Limited against entering a 2.44-acre disputed land at Miotso in the Ningo-Prampram District.
The court gave the order on Monday after hearing arguments from the counsels of Devtraco Woodlands and Sky Limit Structure Builders Limited, the respondent and applicant, respectively, after the court had earlier convicted the company for not immediately complying with its orders to remove some containers and structures it had erected on the land under contention.
A certified true copy of the ruling on the contempt application available to the Ghana News Agency (GNA) indicates that the ruling pertains to an application submitted on behalf of the applicant (Sky Limit) to hold Devtraco Woodlands in contempt of court for undermining and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
It noted that the affidavit of the applicant stated that in proof of its case, the applicant’s managing director, Mr. Samuel Barrington, deposed that “on 14th August, the applicant issued a writ and summons and statement of claim against the respondent.”
It added that the said writ was accompanied by an application for an interlocutory injunction, which sought to restrain Devtraco Woodlands from developing the subject matter of the suit until the final determination of the suit.
It indicated that, in part, the court find exhibits from the applicant supported its claim that the respondent had carried out some work on the disputed land and was still developing it, even though the contempt application and the substantive case were still pending. “In the opinion of the court, that is evidence of contempt of court because the matter is sub judice.
“It is the finding of the court that the applicant has established that whilst the suit and the contempt application are pending, the respondent has undertaken some development on the said land. That is clearly contemptuous and must not be countenanced.”
The ruling further added that “It is worthy to note that though this court chose to give the parties an expeditious trial instead of determining the application for interlocutory injunction, that does not give any party before this court the right or authority to develop the land or interfere with the state of the land, thereby changing its character whilst this court is yet to determine the issues before it.”
The court again stressed that, “Citizens of this country cannot take the law into their own hands and disrespect the authority of the courts. The courts exist to maintain law and order because we live in a country of laws and not the show of brutal force or authority.”
GNA
Edited by Benjamin Mensah