Nana Akomea, others face jail term over contempt of court

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

A private real estate company, Mariville Homes Ltd, wants the MD of state transport company STC, Nana Akomea, and six others convicted for contempt after suing them for trespassing on its private property.

Mariville Homes Ltd had sued Akomea and nine other tenants for engaging in a reconstruction exercise on its property without its consent, which is also a clear violation of the “various sub-lease agreements between the plaintiff and the defendants.”

The plaintiffs had disregarded the suit and are still going ahead with the road alternation at the estate hence the contempt suit.

In the affidavit, the property owners said: “The action of the respondents by continuing to carry out the reconstruction exercise after they have been notified of the writ of summons and Statement of claim as well as the interlocutory injunction application will render the judgement of the court a nugatory since the reconstruction exercise would have been completed by the time the court gives its judgment.”

It continued: “That the second leg of the contempt implies that the respondents are not acting contrary to a court order but their action is such that it is prejudicial to the outcome of the case and may interfere in the justice delivery mandate of the court before whom is the substance case.

“That in the circumstances, the respondents did not violate any order of this Honourable Court but rather the action of the Respondents in continuing with the reconstruction exercise is prejudicial to the outcome of this case and also interferes in the justice delivery systems of this court.”

It added: “That the respondents have disrespected this Honourable court since the continuous reconstruction exercise has a tendency of jeopardizing the outcome of the case. That in the circumstances, I pray that this obvious disregard to the court amounts to nothing more than contempt of which the respondents ought to be convicted.”

Background

Mariville Homes wants the High Court to grant “an order of interlocutory injunction directed at the defendants restraining them from carrying on the said reconstruction exercise.”

Also, per the writ, the plaintiff also wants a perpetual injunction served on the plaintiffs “restraining them from carrying on the said or any reconstruction exercise without the consent of the plaintiff.”

It added: “An order directing the individual members of the 1^st Defendant association and the 2^nd and 8^th defendants to pay the said estate maintenance fees as agreed upon in their respective sub-lease agreements from January 2011 to date.”

Mariville Homes said as part of the sub-leases issued to the tenants, they are not allowed to build or cause to be erected “any building on the demised premises or make any alterations or additions to any buildings on the demised premises except with the consent in writing of the plaintiff.”

The writ said: “On or about Monday, April 6, 2020, the defendants trespassed on the plaintiff’s property to reconstruct the road that leads to the respective homes of the individual members of the 1^st defendant association and the respective homes of the 2^nd and 8^th defendants,” adding, they brought “various machines to reconstruct the said roads with police escort on the orders of the 9^th defendant.”

In the writ, Mariville Homes said it was never notified about the said reconstruction which will eventually “interfere in the structural plan and layout of the plaintiff’s estate properties.”

It added that the reconstruction will also compromise the layout of the estate and affect the quality of the properties. Therefore, the decision of the tenants is “illegal and must be stopped.”

Attached is a copy of the writ:

Source: Daily Mail GH