On May 24th2019 the Sunyani High Court sentenced the Queen Mother of the Drobo Traditional Council Nana Yaa Ansuaa and 11 others to a fine of ¢3000 each for contempt of court.
The Japekrom stool led by Nana Amoa Aturu Nkonkonkyia II initiated legal proceedings against the late Paramount chief of Drobo, Nana Bosea Gyinantwi IV and several others including the now infamous 12 for wilfully violating the court of Appeal’s order as confirmed by the Supreme Court that;
The Drobo Stool and all its subjects now in possession of any portion of Mpuasu-Japekrom stool land seek grants of their respective lands within the Mpuasu-Japekrom Traditional Area in their possession from the Co-defendant stool.
The main defence of the Drobo stool was that the applicant (Japekrom stool) had instituted a fresh action at the High Court for recovery of possession.
Secondary that the accused were not parties to the suit and for that matter it was wrong for the applicant to serve them with the entry of judgement.
The Presiding Judge His Lordship Justice Patrick Baayeh before pronouncing judgement lamented at the contemptuous and inane arguments being forwarded by the Defence team with these remarks;
I must say that I find it difficult to understand this line of argument because the order of the court of appeal as affirmed by the Supreme Court is clear and unambiguous; the Drobo stool and all its subjects now in possession of any portion of the Mpuasu-japekrom stool lands seek grants of their respective lands within the Mpuasu-Japekrom Traditional Area in their possession from the Co-defendant stool (Japekrom).
Please find below Highlights of Justice Baayeh’s judgement.
In my view for as long as the respondents are not denying that they occupy portions of the Mpuasu-Japekrom stool lands, and they are also not denying that they are subjects of Drobo stool, it does not lie in their mouths to argue that they were not parties to the suit or that they are not privies to the parties. Drobohene who represented the Drobo Traditional Council was a party and as the Supreme Court stated the dispute was un fact between Drobohene and Japekromhene.
Regarding the respondent’s argument that the respondents cannot be held in contempt for declaratory reliefs and for that matter seeking grants cannot include existing people occupying the land but applicable to future grants.
This order cannot be said to be declaratory order or applicable to only future grants. The order was specific on existing subject of Drobo stool who are in possession of Mpuasu-Japekrom stool lands.
