JOE ONYAME @ KUKU EKPE vs. GCNET LTD., GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2016]DLHC11578

JOE ONYAME @ KUKU EKPE vs. GCNET LTD., GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY AND THE ATTORNEY... [2016]DLHC11578

Date	2016-02-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC/03/13
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC11578

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)

GRACE EWOOL WITH EKUA SACKEY FOR 3RD DEFENDANT PRESENT

NII AKWEI BRUCE-THOMPSON FOR 1ST DEFENDANT PRESENT

[2016]DLHC11578
																																						<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" >JOE ONYAME @ KUKU EKPE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GCNET LTD., GHANA REVENUE
AUTHORITY AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:103.15pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. OCC/03/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATA: 16TH FEBRUARY 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>GRACE EWOOL WITH EKUA SACKEY FOR 3RD
DEFENDANT PRESENT<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: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;tab-stops:103.15pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">NII AKWEI BRUCE-THOMPSON FOR
1ST&nbsp;&nbsp; DEFENDANT PRESENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH
(MRS.)<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:121.95pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The
instant application has been brought by the 3rd Defendant to this suit seeking
an order of this Court striking out the Attorney General as a Party to the
instant action. The thrust of the Applicant’s case is that Plaintiff’s Amended
Writ and Statement of Claim filed on the 13th of January 2015 do not disclose
any cause of action against the 3rd Defendant, thereby rendering the 3rd
Defendant/Applicant an unnecessary Party to the instant suit. According to the
Applicant, the Attorney General stepped in as a Party to the suit on account of
the Ministry of Trade and Industry which was initially sued as 3rd Defendant by
the Plaintiff . Counsel for Applicant argued that it was quite clear on the
face of the pleadings and the reliefs being sought by the Plaintiff that
neither the Ministry of Trade nor the Attorney General, were necessary Parties
to the suit. <o:p></o:p>Though
not present in Court to respond to the motion, the Plaintiff by an affidavit
filed in the 29th January 2016 opposes the application and insists that the 3rd
Defendant is a necessary Party to the instant proceedings. The main ground upon
which Plaintiff resists the instant application is that, it is the Applicant
which is charged under ARTICLE 88 OF THE 1992 CONSTITUTION with the conduct of
civil cases for and on behalf the state. It is therefore imperative that the
Applicant remains a Party to the suit to answer to the respective allegations
made by Plaintiff against the Ministry of Trade and the 2nd Defendant, the
Ghana Revenue Authority which bodies according to Plaintiff, are both agencies
of state.<o:p></o:p>In
my view, to determine whether or not the 3rd Defendant/Applicant is a necessary
Party to the this action, there is the need for this Court to examine the
Plaintiff’s Amended Writ and&nbsp; Statement
of Claim in order to ascertain whether or not there is any case being made
against the 3rd Defendant/Applicant by the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;Upon a careful scrutiny of the Amended
Statement of Claim, I do not find any legal wrong being alleged against the
Ministry of Trade and Industry or the 3rd Defendant/Applicant for that
matter.&nbsp; Additionally, none of the
reliefs being sought in Plaintiff’s Writ is directed at the 3rd
Defendant/Applicant. I find rather untenable, the Plaintiffs assertion in
paragraph 8 of his affidavit in opposition that the 3rd Defendant ought to
remain a party especially due to the presence of the 2nd Defendant in the
suit.&nbsp;&nbsp; The 2nd Defendant, by virtue of
SECTION 1(2) OF THE GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY ACT 2009, ACT 791 is a fully
fledged legal entity with capacity to sue and be sued in its own name and does
not require the 3rd Defendant/Applicant to conduct this matter on its behalf. I
must also say, I consider rather startling, the Plaintiff’s proposition that
the Applicant apply to join him as Plaintiff if it no longer considers proper,
its position in the suit as Defendant, since the state stands to benefit from a
“positive outcome of this case”. As rightly conceded by the Plaintiff in
paragraph 10 of his affidavit, a Party cannot be joined as Plaintiff to a suit
without that Party’s consent signified in writing in accordance with ORDER
4(5)(3) OF THE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES) CI 47.&nbsp; It follows therefore, that the 3rd Defendant
cannot be compelled to join Plaintiff in the prosecution of this action against
the Defendants.<o:p></o:p>In
light of the foregoing, it is my considered view that the 3rd Defendant is not
a necessary Party to the instant action. <o:p></o:p>By
ORDER 4(5) (2) OF THE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES) CI 47, this Court has
the power at any stage of the proceedings to suo motu or on application “order
any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who for any
reason is no longer a necessary party to cease to be a party”.&nbsp; I therefore grant the 3rd Defendant’s
application and hereby order that the 3rd Defendant be struck off as a Party to
this action. Accordingly, the Attorney General ceases to be a Party to the
suit. Plaintiff to amend the title of the suit to reflect same.&nbsp; Case to take its normal course.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;MRS. AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT <o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></main>