ADOFO vs. KUDAYA AND OTHERS [1976]DLHC340

Date	1976-11-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC340

ANDOH J.

I. N. K. WUAKU FOR THE APPELLANTS.

M. R. K. ATADIKA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLHC340
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ADOFO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>KUDAYA AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 283<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
18 NOVEMBER 1975.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

I. N. K. WUAKU FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

M. R. K. ATADIKA FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ANDOH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANDOH J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant Kodzovi Dzivenu applied to the District Court Grade II, Dzodze, to be
made a co-defendant in a suit instituted by the respondents herein as
plaintiffs against some three defendants. The application for joinder was
opposed by the respondents on four main grounds, namely:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1) That the application was not
made in good faith.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) That in a civil summons No.
6/57 instituted by the respondents and other members of his family which the
applicant joined as the fourth co-defendant, he, i.e. the applicant,
discontinued his claim to the land after he had given evidence in the native
court of trial.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3) That the respondents had also
obtained judgment against the defendants in civil summons No. 7/57 in a native
court of trial.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(4) The purpose of the
application was to embarrass the respondents and confuse the issue before the District
Court Grade II, Dzodze.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant had stated in his supporting affidavit that he was the current head
of the Atsiavishie family, the owners of the land the subject-matter in
dispute, and that it was the said family which pledged the land to the first
defendant, Yezuamevornawo Kudaya. The appellant further contended that the
first defendant had been in possession of the land for more than ten years
without interruption and he would want to be joined to the suit to protect the
family interest.<o:p></o:p>The trial
magistrate did not give any tangible reason for refusing the application. He
ruled as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“This is
a motion by Nutsugah, Esq., of counsel from the firm Messrs. Dogoe-Nutsugah
&amp; Co., solicitors for the applicant, Kodzovi Dzivenu, that he be at liberty
to join in the case as co-defendant on behalf of his family upon the grounds
set out in the supporting affidavit herein. And going through the affidavit of
Kodzovi Dzivenu for joinder and hearing Nutsugah, Esq., counsel for the
applicant in person, in support of the affidavit.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">And on
going through the affidavit of Ackumey Adogo, the respondent and against the
affidavit and hearing from Atadika, Esq., of counsel for the respondent in
opposition. It is hereby declared that the motion for the rejoinder be and is
hereby dismissed. Costs of ¢50.00 to the respondent-applicant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since the
order was undoubtedly interlocutory, the applicant sought special leave to
appeal. This special leave was granted. Mr. Atadika opposed the application for
special leave as follows: “That it had no merit because in an earlier suit
about the ownership of the land he [meaning the applicant] joined and withdrew
before the case was finally determined.” As I have stated the trial magistrate
granted leave to the applicant to appeal against the order refusing the
joinder.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>