Kwesi Enimil V. Kwesi Tuakyi (1952)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Contempt of Court—mistake in disobeying order.

Facts

The respondents (plaintiffs below) sued the appellant for a declaration that they were entitled to possession of certain lands and obtained judgment, which was affirmed on appeal on 3rd February, 1950; and the respondents obtained an order on 23rd February, 1950, for delivery of possession.

The appellant obtained conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council on 27th February, 1950, and final leave on 22nd June, 1950, on which day he withdrew his application for stay of execution upon Counsel for the respondents stating ” Writ of
possession partially executed, prepared to give undertaking that respondents will not take possession of any further portions of the land Admittedly on 22nd June, 1950, the appellant and others by him represented were still in occupation of the land in dispute.

This land was wholly embraced in a Writ of Possession executed in appellant’s presence on 4th March, 1950 (in between conditional and final leave). The respondents filed a motion in September, 1950, for appellant to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt, and the Court ordered him to pay a fine and costs and to obey the order for delivery of possession. The appellant appealed against it.

Held

Proceedings for contempt affect the liberty of the subject and are strictissimi juris. Although the writ of possession had been executed and the respondents had technically taken legal possession of the land, the appellant and those he represented were still in actual possession at the time of his obtaining final leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and he was reasonably entitled to understand the undertaking of respondents’ Counsel as a promise to take no further steps until the decision of the Privy Council became known.

Appeal allowed: order set aside.