THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION & ANOR vs THE DEPUTY GENERAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION & 5 OTHERS [2009]DLHC16641

THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION & ANOR vs THE DEPUTY... [2009]DLHC16641

Date	2009-04-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. A H R 54/2007
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC16641

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

B. T. AGBLE

ALBERT ADAARE

[2009]DLHC16641
																																						<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 CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL &amp; COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION
&amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE DEPUTY GENERAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIAL &amp; COMMERCIAL WORKERS
UNION &amp; 5 OTHERS<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; <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: -0.35pt;">

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>SUIT NO. A H R 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; &nbsp; DATE: 9TH APRIL, 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: -0.35pt;">

B. T. AGBLE FOR PLAINTIFFS <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<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: -0.35pt;">

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

</div>&nbsp;In this
action, the plaintiffs sued out a writ of summons against the defendants
claiming against the defendants various reliefs as indorsed on the writ of
summons.&nbsp; The writ was accompanied by a
statement of claim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;After
entering appearance to the writ of summons, the defendant filed a statement of defence
in which they averred at paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“2. The defendants object in limine to
the capacities in which the plaintiffs have brought the present suit and also
state that the positions that the plaintiffs occupy are not personal to the plaintiffs
and the plaintiffs cannot bring this suit in those capacities.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The defendants also object to the capacities in which the 1st,
2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants
have been sued and add that the positions of the 1st, 2nd,
3rd, 4th and 5th defendants which they occupy
presently in the union are not personal to them.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Defendants therefore objects in limine to the institution of this suit
and state that on a preliminary point of law as to the capacity of the
plaintiffs, the defendant shall apply to have the present suit dismissed”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
plaintiffs did not file a Reply to the statement of defence and hence by Order
11 rules 14(1) and 19(1) (b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 CI.
47, issues were joined in respect of the statement of defence 7 days after it
has been served on the plaintiff which marks the closure of pleading in this
case.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
statement of defence was served on the plaintiffs in the year 2007, however the
court ordered the plaintiffs to apply for directions before the plaintiffs
filed an application for directions in the year 2009.&nbsp; The defendants, particularly the 6th
defendant, also filed additional issues for considerations of the court.&nbsp; At paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the additional
issues filed, the 6th defendant prayed for a determination of the
issues raised thereunder.&nbsp; &nbsp;That is to say:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether the suit is properly before the court having regard to the
capacities in which the plaintiffs have brought the action.<o:p></o:p>2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether the plaintiffs had the capacity to initiate <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-.35pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:9.0pt;
line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt">