NUMO GEORGE ANKONU ADJIN TETTEH & 3 ORS vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LANDS COMMISSION [2013]DLHC4192

NUMO GEORGE ANKONU ADJIN TETTEH & 3 ORS vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LANDS COMMI... [2013]DLHC4192

Date	2013-07-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO.FAL/251/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC4192

MR JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

GEORGE ANKOMAH MENSAH FOR THE APPLICANT

JAMES MENSAH KULLEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

[2013]DLHC4192
																																						<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" >NUMO GEORGE ANKONU ADJIN
TETTEH &amp; 3 ORS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
LANDS COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, (FINANCIAL DIVISION 1), 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.FAL/251/2013&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: 31ST JULY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>GEORGE
ANKOMAH MENSAH FOR THE APPLICANT<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">

JAMES
MENSAH KULLEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MR
JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING ON JOINDER APPLICATION<o:p></o:p>

</div>It
is provided in Order 4 r 5(b) of CI 47 that at any stage of proceedings the court
may on such terms as it thinks just either on its own motion or on application
order any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence
before the court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the
proceedings are effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon to
be added as a party.<o:p></o:p>It
is equally stipulated in Order 4 r 3(2) of CI 47 thatwhere the Plaintiff in any
action, other than a probate action, claims any relief to which any other
person is entitled jointly with the Plaintiff, all persons so entitled shall,
subject to the provisions of any enactment and unless the court gives leave to
the contrary, be parties to the action and any of them who does not consent to
being joined as a Plaintiff shall, subject to any order made by the court on an
application for leave under this subrule, be made a defendant.<o:p></o:p>Taking
advantage of the law, a Evans OkineAnteh of Teshie, Accra who claims to be the
overall head of the OdaiNtow family of Teshie and Ashongmang, has applied to
the court to be joined in the instant suit as the 2nd defendant.&nbsp; The thrust of his application is that the
Plaintiffs herein are members of his family but with lesser authority when it
came to alienation of family land.&nbsp; He
has averred in the supporting affidavit that the Plaintiffs, by convention and
judgment of the court, do not take decisions to alienate family land but sign
as witnesses and elders of only concurring to his signature.<o:p></o:p>Further,
he averred that he has filed a suit in a case EVANS OKINE ANTEH v 4 SAMUEL
MENSAH DONKOR &amp; ORS contesting the headship of the family.&nbsp; However, so long as the issue of who had the
right to deal with, dispose of and or alienate family landwas concerned, the
instant suit before this court cannot be effectually determined unless he, as
the head of family of the larger OdaiNtow family, was joined as a necessary
party.<o:p></o:p>I
need to put it on record that the application is vehemently opposed to by the
Plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>In
moving the application, learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the
averments as set out in the accompanying affidavit.&nbsp; He did refer the court to Order 4 r 3(2) of
CI 47, the exhibits attached to the accompanying affidavit, particularly a
statutory declaration confirming the appointment of the Applicant as the
overall head of OdaiNtow family.&nbsp; Counsel
also referred to the Statement of Claim and the Court of Appeal decision in
MONTERO &amp; ANR v REDCO LTD (1984-86) 1 GLR 710 @ 715 and submitted quite
forcefully that the court has discretion to join all persons whose presence was
necessary so as to effectually and completely adjudicate all matters in
controversy in the cause or matter.<o:p></o:p>He
contended that the Applicant being the overall head of family was a necessary
party.&nbsp; He thus strongly urged on the
court to join him in the case.<o:p></o:p>Learned
Counsel next turned his attention to the Affidavit In Opposition filed by the
Plaintiffs and submitted that the Plaintiffs themselves had conceded that the
issue of who was the head of family was pending to be determined.&nbsp; He contended that if the application was
refused, by the time the Applicant was able to establish his position as the
head of family the Plaintiffs would have arrogated to themselves the right to
dispose of family lands not properly conferred on them.<o:p></o:p>Concluding,
he contended that this is a proper case where the Applicant has to be joined to
enable the court to dispose of the matter effectually and effectively.<o:p></o:p>In
opposing the application, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff referred the court
to a 1980 judgment of K.A. Agyepong J (as he then was) which determined the
status as to the legitimate persons who have the capacity to deal with or
alienate OdaiNtow family land.&nbsp; He
submitted that in that judgment the ground rules set down was that it was the 4
heads of the branches of the family who are qualified and were competent to
grant the family lands.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
next referred to a judgment by Ocran J in a case, NUUMO GEORGE A.A. TETTEY v
NII ARYEE ANNANG &amp; ORS delivered as recent as 25/11/11 which held that the
Plaintiff in that case, as the head of the Abbey We and Principal member of
OdaiNtow family had the capacity to institute the action.&nbsp; The learned trial judge acknowledged the
ground rules set down by Agyepong J’s judgment.&nbsp;
He also referred to a Ruling of the High Court in another case where the
Applicant herein applied for an order of interlocutory injunction in connection
with OdaiNtow family land but which was refused because his capacity as the
head of family was in issue.<o:p></o:p>Needlessly
to say, I have critically scrutinized the affidavit evidence before me as well
as the pleadings filed by the Plaintiffs.&nbsp;
I have equally given active consideration to able arguments canvassed by
both advocates in support of, and as against, the grant of the application.<o:p></o:p>To
begin with, the test in an application for the grant of joinder is whether the
presence of the party will enable the trial court to effectually and
effectively determine all matters in controversy or cause or matter between the
contesting parties.<o:p></o:p>In
an unreported Ruling of this Court in a case, MERCHANT BANK v CROWN<o:p></o:p></s</main>