THE NATIONAL GENERAL SECRETARY (ICU), GENERAL SECRETARY (ICU) vs THE DEPUTY GENERAL SECRETARY & 3 ORS [2009]DLHC16633

THE NATIONAL GENERAL SECRETARY (ICU), GENERAL SECRETARY (ICU) vs THE DEPUTY GENE... [2009]DLHC16633

Date	2009-03-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AHR 54/2007
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC16633

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

AGBLE

ALBERT ADARE

[2009]DLHC16633
																																						<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" >THE NATIONAL GENERAL SECRETARY (ICU), GENERAL SECRETARY (ICU)<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE DEPUTY GENERAL SECRETARY &amp; 3 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 3.45pt;">

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>SUIT NO. AHR 54/2007&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 5TH MARCH,
2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 3.45pt;">

AGBLE FOR PLAINTTIFS <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J. <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 3.45pt;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;In
this matter, pleadings have closed and counsel for the plaintiffs filed an
application for directions on the 21st January, 2009 in which a
number of issues were listed for trial.&nbsp;
Counsel for the 6th defendant also filed additional issues in
which he sought to add to the main issues for trial.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;When
the application came to be moved counsel for the plaintiffs argued that issues
1, 2, 3 and 5 of the additional issues be deleted or struck out.&nbsp; Counsel for the 6th defendant also
applied for some of the issues set out in the application for directions to be
struck out because they do not arise from the pleadings.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
the instant matter, the plaintiffs did not file a reply to the defence filed by
the 6th defendant and therefore pleadings closed 7 days after the
defence has been served on the plaintiffs.&nbsp;
See Order 11 Rule 19(1) (b) of CI 47 and therefore issues were joined in
respect of the statement of defence see Order 11 Rule 14(1).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Paragraphs
1, 2 and 3 of the additional issues raises the issue of the capacity of the
plaintiffs to sue and prosecute the present action. &nbsp;&nbsp;Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Statement of Defences
challenges the capacities of the plaintiffs to sue. &nbsp;As already indicated, by the Rules of Court
issues became joined on the pleadings last served and hence the issues
concerning the capacities of the plaintiffs raised in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the
additional issues are issues which flows directly from the pleadings and which
ought to be set down for determination of the court.&nbsp; The plaintiffs’ lawyer can therefore not
question the setting down of those issues as additional issues for trial and his
application for their deletion will therefore be dismissed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
plaintiffs are seeking, as their second relief endorsed on the writ, a
declaration that their removal from office constitutes an infringement of their
fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic 1992.
&nbsp;It follows therefore that the 5th
issue set out in paragraph 5 of the additional issues whether any human right
of the plaintiffs has been violated by the 6th defendant is an issue
that flows directly from the writ and the statement of claim and hence it is
wrong for counsel to pray that that issue or paragraph should be deleted or
struck out.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
first issue that is issue 1(a) (b) of the application for directions does not
in my view arise for determination at all.&nbsp;
This is so because no where in their statement of claim have the
plaintiffs stated that they were lawfully elected National Officers.&nbsp; On the contrary, it is the defendants who by
paragraph 5 of their statement of defence admitted the averment contained in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the statement of claim which seeks to say that the
plaintiffs and 1st to 5th defendants are National Chairman
and General Secretary of ICU and other officers respectively of the National
Union.&nbsp; The defendants went ahead in paragraph
5 to state that the plaintiffs and the other officers were elected and sworn
into office for a 4-year term.&nbsp; This
additional averment by the defendants in paragraph 5 of their statement of
defence has not been denied by any subsequent pleadings by the plaintiffs
herein.&nbsp; Hence no issue is joined on them
and the issue set </main>