
JUDGMENT:  
By a Motion on Notice, brought under Order 50 r 1 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (CI 47), the Defendant/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant,  seeks an order for the committal of the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) for contempt of Court. The motion was supported by an affidavit and supplementary affidavit. The circumstances preceding this application are that the Respondent commenced an action against the Applicant for the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons, namely; Declaration of Title to the land in dispute, an order of perpetual injunction against the Applicant, damages for trespass, costs and any other reliefs the Court may deem it just to grant. The 
2  
Respondent also filed an application for an order of interlocutory injunction against the Applicant to restrain her acting by herself, or her workmen, assigns among others from carrying out or continuing construction works on the land pending the final determination of the suit. The Applicant entered appearance and filed a Defence and an affidavit in opposition to the application for injunction.   Before the injunction could be heard and determined, the Applicant filed the present application seeking an order to commit the Respondent, for contempt. Subsequent to the filing of this present application, the 2nd Plaintiff was joined to the suit, and at the time of hearing of this application, the Writ of summons had been amended to include the 2nd Plaintiff as a party to the suit. The 2nd Plaintiff is however not a party to the present contempt proceedings. The gravamen of the Applicant’s case is that by a Judgment of the High Court, the Defendant was declared owner of the land in dispute and was put into possession of same by execution of a Writ of possession, whereupon she built a wall around the property. According to the Applicant while the application for injunction was pending the Respondent engaged in conduct which amounted to disrespect to the authority of the Court, its Judgments and orders by pulling down the walls of the Defendant. The Respondent filed an affidavit in opposition, in which he denied pulling down the walls of the Applicant, alleging that it was rather the Applicant who pulled down his structures, and further that he was never a party to any suit instituted by the Applicant. He contended that he instituted the present suit when he became aware of the said Judgment in the Applicant’s favour. Upon the Court’s direction, oral testimony was heard for the determination of the application, and written submissions filed. One Curtis Nortey Sowah testified on behalf of the Applicant, and called no witnesses, while the Respondent testified and called one witness. Before proceeding to examine and evaluate the oral and affidavit evidence before the Court, I will examine the principles governing the law of contempt and the circumstances in which the Respondent can be held by the Court, to have committed contempt. Contempt of Court is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary 6TH Edition as  “Any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct [a] court (sic) in administration of justice or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity. Committed by a person who does any act in wilful contravention of its authority or dignity, or tending to impede or frustrate the administration of justice, or by one who, being under the courts authority as a party to a proceeding therein, wilfully disobeys its lawful orders or fails to comply with an undertaking which he has given”. 
3  
In the case of RE; EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS (NO 2 ) REPUBLIC V. NUMAPAU, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND OTHERS ,EX PARTE AMEYAW II (NO 2),[1998-1999] SCGLR 639, holding 1, the Court in defining contempt, held among others as follows; “Civil contempts are those quasi – contempts consisting in failure to do something which the party was ordered by the Court to do for the benefit or advantage of another party to pending proceedings, while criminal contempts was that done in respect of the Court or its process, or which obstructed the administration of Justice or tended to bring the Court into disrepute.” An applicant who alleges that a Respondent has committed contempt of Court carries the burden to prove same. Contempt being quasi criminal, the burden of proof is strict and beyond reasonable doubt. This position of the law was re- stated in the case of RE; EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS (NO 2 )  supra at page  665 and 666 per  ACQUAH JSC ( as he then was) where the learned Justice stated at page 666 as follows; “…. Now from the standard of proof required to sustain liability, an Applicant must make out a prima facie case against each of the Respondents before the Court can turn to consider the defences put up. And in this regard, an admission or proof of the actual allegation does not imply an admission on the liability in Contempt, as it would still be the burden of the Applicant to establish that the factual allegations constitute contempt.” The basis for the application brought by the Applicant for committal of the Respondent for contempt, is not the breach of an order of the Court, but acts which the Applicant alleges are a disrespect to the authority of the Court and an obstruction of the Administration of Justice. In the case of AMEGA KOFI TOGODO & 3ORS V. TOGBUI NYAHO TAMAKLOE OF WHUITI & 4 ORS , SUIT NO HI/211/2003  decided on 15th APRIL 2005 C.A,(unreported),  the Court per Asare Korang J.A  at pages 4 and 5 of the Judgment stated thus ; “What was the contempt alleged to have been committed in this case? It was not that the appellants had breached or disobeyed any order of injunction made against them by the judicial committee of the Volta Regional House of Chiefs. The basis for the charge of contempt was that the Appellants with full knowledge of the pendency of the litigation in the Judicial committee of the Volta Regional House of Chiefs, bearing on the qualification of the 4th Appellants Awoamefia undermined and tended to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect , and also interfered with pending litigations. The principle is that if a party knowing of the existence of a case – a writ , a petition or a motion pending before an adjudicating body seeking to restrain an act , makes a decision himself to deal with and 
4  
grant the very remedy to himself without giving opportunity to the adjudicating body to hear the matter , he commits contempt.” The Supreme Court per Acquah JSC in RE; EFFIDUASE STOOL AFFAIRS (NO 2 )  supra at page  663 per  ACQUAH JSC ( as he then was) could not have made this anymore clearer when he stated thus; “Counsel takes a narrow view of the meaning of contempt of court and would restrict same to disobedience to court order. I think the point is now clear that any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the court into disrespect or disregard and /or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants or their witnesses is a contempt.”  From the above, therefore, it is settled law that contempt does not arise only as a result of flouting an order of the Court, but also out of acts which tend to bring the authority and administration of justice into disrespect or disrepute. These principles already stated will be applied in the determination of this application presently before this Court. According to the Applicant, pursuant to obtaining a Judgment from the High Court dated 10th July 2013, in her favour declaring her owner of the land in dispute, she caused her lawyers to write to the occupiers of the land including the 1st Plaintiff inviting them for discussions on the way forward, which invitation was not honoured by the Occupiers. She therefore entered into possession of the land by a Writ of possession and commenced building a wall on the land. The Applicant attached to her affidavit as Exhibit CS’’, her Deed of lease, the Judgment of the Court in suit No, L169/99, an order of injunction, Order for leave to issue writ of possession, writ of possession and certificate of possession.  The Applicant contended that though the Respondent was aware of the Judgment in her favour and inspite of the pending injunction brought by him, he proceeded to demolish the wall of the Applicant. The Applicant attached to her affidavit in support, Exhibits SQ1 and SQ2 as evidence of the demolition of her wall. The duty of this Court on this application is not to determine the merits of the substantive suit but to determine whether or not the Respondent has engaged in acts amounting to contempt of Court.  One Curtis Nortey Sowah testified on behalf of the Applicant. According to him, the Applicant is his Aunt, and he was engaged in construction on the land in dispute. In his own evidence – in- chief, he admitted that he did not see the Defendant demolishing the land. On the 13th Of July 2015, his evidence – in- chief was in part, as follows; Q Did you witness the Plaintiff conducting this demolition?  
5   
A To say the truth I did not witness the said demolition by the plaintiff, but he was the one always coming to the property to give us warning over the land.  
In cross –examination by Counsel for the Respondent on 15th July 2015, he  affirmed his earlier testimony as follows;  
Q     You told this Court you never saw Alhaji Haruna destroying anything on           the land.  
A     Yes, I never saw him demolishing the structure but he was the one always coming to the site to question us  
Q      You did not see anyone being directed by him to demolish the structures?   
A     No I did not.  
The Applicant did not call any witness to corroborate the testimony given on her behalf.  
The Respondent gave testimony consistent with his affidavit in opposition, that he never demolished a wall, and that he had his structure demolished by persons he called thugs hired by the Applicant. According to him the said thugs may have demolished the Applicant’s wall mistaking it for his. Though Counsel for the Applicant suggested to the Respondent that he was the only one with reason to demolish the wall, the Respondent never changed his story and his testimony was not impeached under cross- examination. The Respondent tendered in evidence Exhibits 1 and 2” which were photographs depicting the state of the land and the portions which were demolished.  
Counsel for the Applicant by her written submissions urged the Court not to attach any importance to the testimony of the Respondent’s witness, DW1, because of her inconsistent statements. I do not share Counsel’s view. The witness was clear in her testimony that she was in the structure of the Respondent when some persons came to demolish same, but was not on the premises when policemen and Court bailiffs came to the land in dispute, since she never saw them. She further stated that since the demolition, she has been living in a wooden kiosk on the land.  She testified that the Respondent was her landlord who had put her in possession of the land. She corroborated the Respondent’s testimony that there were structures on the land which were subsequently demolished. Contrary to the case of the Applicant, that there were no structures on the land when she went onto same, Curtis Nortey who testified on her behalf, admitted that the Photograph, Exhibit 1 was reflective of the structures on the land when he went unto same to commence construction work and that at the commencement of construction work on the Applicant’s behalf, the structure in Exhibit 1 which shows a partly demolished structure, had not been demolished at the time. The witness 
6  
testified under cross- examination that he completed the wall before he became aware of the injunction that had been filed by the Plaintiff.  
From the evidence before the Court, it is indeed clear that some demolition took place, and it seems to me that the said demolition affected both the Structures of the Respondent and the walls of the Applicant.  Since it is the Applicant who has brought this application before the Court, this Court will seek to determine contempt relative to the Respondent only. That there was a demolition that affected the walls of the Applicant is not in doubt. However has the Applicant been able to prove that it was the Respondent who demolished or authorised the demolition of her wall? From the Applicant’s own testimony by Curtis Nortey, he never saw the applicant either by himself or directing any person to demolish structures on the land. No evidence before this Court implicates the Respondent in the demolition of the Defendant’s wall during the pendency of tis suit or the application for injunction or at any other time. The assertion that the Respondent is the only person with reason to demolish the wall is at best speculative, and cannot in my view discharge the onerous burden placed on the Applicant by law, to prove the factual allegations beyond reasonable doubt and to further prove that those acts amount to contempt and are wilful, to enable this Court punish the respondent for contempt. Counsel for the Applicant in her written submissions stated that the Plaintiff had obtained a Judgment in her favour, given notice to the Respondent and been put into possession of the land.  That the Respondent lodged a complaint at the police station and subsequently came to Court, and yet kept on going unto the land to threaten the workers of the Applicant without waiting for the action to be determined. Counsel submitted that the conduct of the Respondent in continuing to visit the land to threaten the Applicant’s workers amounted to an abuse of the Court’s process and constitutes contempt. Counsel for the Applicant urged on the Court that if the Court does not find the Respondent guilty of contempt on account of the broken walls of the Applicant, it should so hold him in contempt over the threats to the Applicant’s workers. It seems to me that the above allegation that the respondent had gone unto the land to threaten the workers of the Applicant, and that same constituted contempt in the face of the pending suit, and the judgment obtained by the Applicant, was neither canvassed by the Applicant in her affidavit in support, nor her supplementary affidavit in support of this Application.  The Respondent denied that he went unto the land to threaten the workers of the Applicant. More importantly, he did not have the opportunity to contest the new ground first raised by Counsel for the Applicant in her written submissions. Since Contempt is a quasi - criminal action, the Respondent ought to be aware of all of the grounds on which the Applicant seeks his committal, to enable him have a fair opportunity to respond to 
7  
same.  Since this was never one of the grounds upon which the application was brought, this Court will not consider this new ground in the determination of this application. Order 50 r 3 (3) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004, (CI 47) states expressly as follows:  
“Without prejudice to the powers of the Court under Order 16 rule 7, no grounds except the grounds set out in the affidavit in support of the motion shall be relied upon at the hearing of an application for an order of committal”  
The burden of proof requires the Applicant to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Applicant’s walls were demolished by the Respondent, that the said act constitutes contempt of Court, and that same have been committed wilfully in order for same to be punishable. 
From the totality of the evidence before the Court, I am of the view what the Applicant has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent is guilty of contempt, thereby failing to discharge the burden of proof required of her by law. The Application therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.  
I award costs of 1, 500 against the Applicant and in favour of the Respondent    
(SGD) HAFISATA AMALEBOBA (MRS) 
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.  
COUNSEL: 
MR. LESTER OHEMENG, MS. MELISSA AMARTEIFIO, MS VELDA A. ATTUAH, LED BY MR. ERIC MENSAH FOR THE APPLICANT, HOLDING THE BREIF OF NENE AMEGATCHER. 
MR. NATHANIEL MYERS FOR THE RESPONDENT (WITH MS. IRENE MARIA QUARSHIE).   
    
8   