JULIANA AYIM DONKOR & 2 ORS. vs. ADE COKER & 3 ORS. [2013]DLCA5112

Date	2013-03-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/163/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA5112

MARIAMA OWUSU J.A. (PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE J.A.

WELBOURNE J.A.

MR. ENOH AMAH ANDOH FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

MR. JAMES AHENKORAH FOR CO-PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

[2013]DLCA5112
																																						<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" >JULIANA AYIM DONKOR &amp; 2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ADE COKER &amp; 3 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center;
text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT NO. H1/163/2012&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: 21ST
MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
ENOH AMAH ANDOH FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS<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.
JAMES AHENKORAH FOR CO-PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS<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">

MARIAMA
OWUSU J.A. (PRESIDING), ACQUAYE J.A.,WELBOURNE J.A.<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARIAMA
OWUSU, J.A:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On 6-12-2007, the High Court, Accra, ruled
among other things that;<o:p></o:p>“….It
is the duty of the plaintiff to do the amendment and serve the co-plaintiff
with the amended writ of summons. It has however been observed that the
plaintiff has done the amendment and filed same on 31-10-07, 10 months after
the order. In fact after Counsel for the Defendants has raised the issue.<o:p></o:p>This
Court having taken into consideration the stage to which case has travelled and
the fact that the defendants had filed court processes and served same on the
Co-plaintiff after the non-compliance had been noticed, I will invoke the
provision of Order 1 R 2 in order to achieve speedy and effective justice,
avoid delay and necessary expense and ensure that as far as possible, all
matters in dispute between the parties may completely, effectively and finally
determined and multiplicity of proceeding concerning any such matters
avoided………..<o:p></o:p>This
Court is of the view that the claim of the Co- Plaintiff as endorsed on the
writ of summons is proper provided it does not lead to any miscarriage of
justice.”<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied with the decision of the
court, the defendants appealed to this court on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>[i]
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned Judge erred in law
when he held that even though the plaintiff had failed to comply with Order 4 Rule
5 (5) &amp; (7) of the High Court [Civil Procedure] Rules 2004, CI 47, he would
nevertheless not strike out the names of the Co-Plaintiffs from the suit.<o:p></o:p>[ii]
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The ruling of the learned Judge was
given per incuriam having regard to the Supreme Court decisions in Morkor vs.
Kuma [East Coast Fisheries case] (1998-99) SCGLR 620 and Sam Jonah vs.
Duodo-Kumi [2003-2004] SCGLR 50 which were cited to him<o:p></o:p>[iii]
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge erred in law
when he with all due respect to him failed to appreciate the situation in which
the Plaintiff’s counsel filed an amended Writ of Summons about almost 2 years
after being granted leave to do so and endorsed same with the reliefs of his
Client as well as the Co-Plaintiffs who were not his client.<o:p></o:p>[iv]
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge erred in law
when he failed to make a definite determination regarding the case of a party
who applies to join a suit as Co-Plaintiff but ends up with his own Statement
of Claim endorsed with different and separate reliefs from that of the
Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>