Yager v Musa
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DEVLIN,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 1961 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1961] EWCA Civ J0510-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 10 May 1961 |
[1961] EWCA Civ J0510-2
Lord Justice Devlin and
Lord Justice Davies
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
MR NEIL BUTTER (instructed by the Official Solicitor) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR IAIN CARMICHAEL (instructed by Messrs Offenbach & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.
: In this case Mr Butter instructed by the Official Solicitor has appeared to appeal from an order which was made by Mr Justice Howard in chambers in relation to the imprisonment for contempt of Court of a man called Brima Musa, a coloured man coming from Sierre Leone, who was the defendant in an action, Yager v. Musa, and was committed for contempt or Court for breach of an injunction that was made in the course of that action.
It is a very unfortunate case. Mr Musa, as I have said, comes from Sierre Leone and some years ago, I think in 1958, he obtained employment with the plaintiff and he formed an obsession for the plaintiff's daughter. All that I need say about it is that it was wholly unreciprocated and in no way encouraged by her. He began to pursue her and to make a nuisance of himself, not only to her but also to the plaintiff and his family. By 1959 he had already got into trouble as the result of that. He appeared before Magistrates for offences that arose out of a disturbance that he created outside the house and for assault and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. But that, unfortunately, did not stop his behaviour and eventually on the 9th September 1959 the plaintiff issued a writ asking for an injunction to restrain the "defendant by himself, his agents or servants or otherwise,.… causing a nuisance and/or annoyance to the plaintiff" or to his family by telephoning or by calling on them or by writing to them. Affidavits have been put in which describe the nature of the nuisance. He was ringing up on the telephone and appearing outside the house and so on, and I need not go into them in detail. The consequence was that on the 29th September an injunction was granted in the terms of the writ. He disobeyed it and on the 1st December 1959 he was committed to prison for his contempt in disobeying the injunction. He was released from that term of imprisonment after about three months on the 8th March 1960 but he continued with the same course of action and ho was committed for contempt of Court again on the 31st May 1960. He was released on that occasion after serving five months imprisonment on the 1st November 1960. But he then returned again to the same sort of thing and he was committed for a third time to prison for contempt of Court on the 7th December 1960, and it was an application to be released from that term or imprisonment that was brought before Mr Justice Howard in chambers when he made the order that is under appeal. It is an order which was made on the 18th April 1961 and it was ordered "that the application be adjourned generally with liberty to restore and be not restored to the list before the expiration of three months from the date hereof".
On the previous occasions upon which he has been released Mr Musa has made an affidavit in which he has expressed his regret for his disobedience and given solomn undertakings that he would refrain from disobedience in the future, but he has broken them. On his appearance before the learned Judge he was not in a position to do more than he had done before, namely, to give the same sort of apology and undertaking. There has been some change in circumstances. In the first place the daughter whom Mr Musa was molesting has become married and she has moved to another address. It is urged on the appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delaney v Delaney
...an order which does not undermine the right of a contemnor to apply during the interim period for his release. That submission is based on Yager v Musa [1961] 2 QB 214. The most material passage appears at page 219, where Devlin LJ said: "The order made by the judge in this case, which was......
-
Dublin City Council v McFeely
...which case the Court has jurisdiction to make a punitive order. His approach is supported by the cases which he mentions Yager v Musa [1961] 2 ALL ER 561, 562 and Danchevsky v Danchevsky [1974] 3 ALL ER 934. It is also supported by Jennison v Baker [1972] 1 ALL ER 997, Phonographic Performa......
-
County Council for County of Laois v Noel Hanrahan and Others
...which case the court has jurisdiction to make a punitive order. His approach is supported by the cases which he mentions, Yager v. Musa [1961] 2 Q.B. 214 and Danchevsky v. Danchevsky [1975] Fam, 17. It is also supported by Jennison v. Baker [1972] 2 Q.B. 52, Phonographic Performance Ltd. v.......
-
Min for Justice v Connolly
...which case the court has jurisdiction to make a punitive order. His approach is supported by the cases which he mentions, Yager v. Musa [1961] 2 Q.B. 214 and Danchevsky v. Danchevsky [1975] Fam. 17. It is also supported by Jennison v. Baker [1972] 2 Q.B. 52, Phonographic Performance Ltd. v.......