G. O. T. DARKWAH vs. D. R. K. SANKAH & 2 ORS. [2010]DLHC5632

Date	2010-03-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO: INDL/2/09
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC5632

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT APPEARS IN PERSON

MR. SELASI FUME FOR G. D. A. LARYEA FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

[2010]DLHC5632
																																						<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" >G. O. T. DARKWAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>D. R. K. SANKAH &amp;
2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT NO: INDL/2/09&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;DATE: 20TH MARCH, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
APPEARS IN PERSON<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

MR. SELASI FUME FOR G. D. A. LARYEA
FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS<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 1.0pt 0in">

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>This
ruling is in respect of Motion on Notice filed by the 1st and 2nd
Defendants praying this Court for an order striking out their names as parties
to this suit. The Plaintiff/Respondent has opposed the application on various
grounds.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Defendants/Applicants aver that 1st and 2nd
Defendants/Applicants are officers of the 3rd Defendant which has a
separate legal personality, but 1st and 2nd
Defendants/Applicants have been joined to the suit in their personal
capacities. Meanwhile, at all material times, they were acting as agents for 3rd
Defendant. By virtue of this agency relationship between 1st and 2nd
Defendants and 3rd Defendant, Plaintiff/Respondent has erred in
substantive law and procedure by joining 1st and 2nd
Defendants to this suit in their personal capacities. This is because the 3rd
Defendant, which is the principal, is responsible for whatever action taken by
1st and 2nd Defendants as agents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to counsel for the Defendants, the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants
are agents of 3rd Defendant and for that matter the Editor and the
Chairman of the Governing Board respectively of the 3rd defendant.
So, they can only be sued alongside the 3rd Defendant where a specific
personal liability is established against them. Counsel submits that the Plaintiff
has not been able to establish any personal liability against 1st
and 2nd Defendants/Applicants in any of the processes filed by him.
Their names should, therefore, be struck out from the Writ as parties to the
suit.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the Defendants goes on to submit that the Plaintiff filed a thirteen page
Affidavit in Opposition made up of seventy-seven paragraphs in which the Plaintiff
seeks to argue his points. It is, therefore, not clear whether the said
Affidavit is actually an Affidavit or a Statement of Case. He submits further
that the rules of Affidavit states simply that Affidavit shall only contain
statement of facts that the deponent can substantiate when called upon to do
so. Meanwhile, the Affidavit in Opposition is made up of arguments. He argues
issues for determination and has gone on to quote rules in the Affidavit which
is contrary to the rule in Affidavit. So what is described by the Plaintiff as
Affidavit in Opposition is not an Affidavit and must, therefore, be struck out.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
issue of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Opposition not satisfying rules for the preparation
of Affidavits, the Plaintiff avers that what he did does not sin against the
rules because he just gave information in the affidavit and there is nothing
wrong with that.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
substantive application, the Plaintiff avers that he filed his Writ of Summons
on 14th July, 2008 and the Defendants filed a Conditional
Appearance, so the Defendant had up to 14days time to file whatever process
they wanted to file. Having waited up to the year 2010, they are far out of
time, so the Defendants are estopped from raising any irregularity with regard
to the Writ. He goes on to argue that the Defendants have even filed their
Statement of Defence and the Plaintiff has filed a reply and application for
directions. The Court has sat on it and set down all the issues for trial. He
referred the Court to Or</main>