Plaintiffs in a case in which they are seeking for a declaration of title to and ownership of all parcels of land situated between Akropong and Kunsu in the Ashanti Region, have filed a notice of appeal before the Court of Appeal in Kumasi.
Yaw Sarfo, Akosua Dufie and Albert Osei-Banahene, Head of the Aduana Family (the plaintiffs) have appealed against the judgment of February 9, 2026 by the High Court in Kumasi, presided over by His Lordship, Abdul- Razak Musah.
The court dismissed the application for committal for contempt because the plaintiffs had not proved a case of contempt beyond reasonable doubt.
It held that the court does not entertain fanciful doubts and that proof need not only reach certainty, but must carry a high degree of probability. But the plaintiffs expressed dissatisfaction with the whole decision of the Court in the February 9, 2026 judgment.
Counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants, James Asamoah, said the judgment in question was against the weight of the affidavit evidence on record and that the trial High Court judge failed to exercise his inherent jurisdiction judicially and judiciously.
They prayed the Appellate Court to set aside and reverse the judgment of the High Court, hoping that the Court of Appeal will make its own orders that are fair, just and equitable based on the affidavit evidence on record.
In the substantive matter before the Mankranso District Court, the plaintiffs had filed a motion of notice seeking an order to commit Nana Appiah Sarfo Kantanka, chief of Akropong Ashanti, Nana Ampofo Twumasi, caretaker chief (Odikro) of Dwenewoho community for contempt of court.
The five co-defendants are Nana Kwadwo Asuman Appiah Kubi, Abdullah Yaqun, Opanin Kwaku Appiah, Abdulai Sani and Kwadwo Adu alias Thommy.
The Mankranso District Court had ordered the defendants, their assigns and agents be restrained from undertaking any form of activities or any development or cultivating or alienating any part of the land in dispute, till the final determination of the suit.
The plaintiffs were seeking damages for trespass, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their assigns and agents from interfering with the title, ownership and possession of Aduana Royal family of Yabi, that acquired the said land from the then chief of Akropong, Nana Kwabena Sarfo in 1925.
The court heard that the first defendant was undertaking illegal mining on the land while the substantive case was pending before the court.
As a result, the plaintiffs filed a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants and their agents from undertaking any illegal mining activities on the land in dispute.
They claimed the illegal mining activities on the land by the second defendant and the use of heavy earth moving machines, including excavators, had caused waste to the disputed land and impacted negatively on the vegetation.
The plaintiffs argued that the vegetation of the land had been destroyed by the intrusion and galamsey activities of the defendants and that unless the Court restrained the defendants the entire land would be destroyed by the time the case is determined.
According to the plaintiffs, they had suffered loss and damages from the wrong act of the defendants and that the intervention of the Court was needed to preserve their property from further destruction by the defendants through illegal mining.
They argued that if the defendants are allowed to undertake illegal mining on the said land and the case is determined in their favour, they would have no land to take, hence the need to restrain the defendants till the final determination of the case.
The plaintiffs also argued that if the defendants are allowed to undertake illegal mining and they (plaintiffs) win the case, the damage cannot be compensated in monetary terms.
The defendants, however, contended that the plaintiffs do not have the requisite capacity to initiate the action against them.
They also claimed that the Akropong Stool had been granted the land since 1958.
Guided by Order 13(1) of the District Court Rules, 2009, the Court upheld the application of the plaintiffs on the grounds that they (plaintiffs) had legal or equitable rights in the disputed land, which if not protected by the court, will cause irreparable damage to them, and accordingly granted the application for injunction to restrain the defendants, until the final determination of the case by the court.
However, the defendants are said to have flouted the December 20, 2023 court order.
In an affidavit in support of the motion on notice filed on October 31, 2025 the plaintiffs stated that despite sufficient awareness of the legal consequences of the restraining order, the respondents have since been using earth moving machines to clear the land in dispute, in order to demarcate for sale to prospective developers while allocating portion of the land to some people to undertake illegal mining on the land.
The plaintiffs argued that the conduct of the respondents in disregarding, disobeying and disrespecting the express orders must be punished.
They said any defiance of court order by a litigant is likely to cast dark clouds on the administration of justice and subjects the court to public ridicule and contempt, hence the need to punish the respondents to serve as a deterrent to like-minded persons.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
