APPRO GHANA LTD vs. ERIC YAW SARPONG BERKU AND ANOR & 2 OTHERS [2018]DLHC9317

Date	2018-05-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC 72/2015
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9317

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

OSEI KUFFOUR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

ATTA POKU FOR THE APPLICANT

[2018]DLHC9317
																																						<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" >APPRO
GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ERIC
YAW SARPONG BERKU AND ANOR &amp; 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OSEI
KUFFOUR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal;tab-stops:9.75pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">ATTA POKU FOR THE APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
is an application for substitution pursuant to Order 4 rule 6 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) rule 2004, CI 47. The applicant, Mavis Fosuah is praying the
court to substitute her for the 2nd defendant herein who is now
deceased.<o:p></o:p>According
to the applicant, she has filed this application in her capacity as the customary
successor of the 2nd defendant and she is doing so in her desire to
protect the interest of the family of the deceased.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff is opposed to the application, likewise an interested party, one
Isaac Ankobea Sarpong.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/respondent’s beef is that the applicant is not the right person to
substitute the 2nd defendant. Counsel for the respondent contends
that the interested party who happens to be the biological son of the 2nd
defendant herein is the one appointed as the administrator of the estate of the
2nd defendant per the letters of administration exhibited in this
court. Counsel submits that where there is conflict as to who should be
substituted the capacity of the parties making the application is the
determining factor. Thus, in the instant case it is the interested party who is
clothed with the capacity to substitute the 2nd defendant, as an
administrator of the latter’s estate.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the interested party submitted to the court that every letters of
administration includes an oath to settle all just debts of the dead person
whose estate is the subject of the letters of administration. He submitted that
the reason why the applicant wants to be substituted is the duty of the
interested party. He concluded that having come to court with evidence that the
letters of administration has been granted to the interested party, it is a
matter of law that the applicant has been incapacitated. He cited the case of In re Appau (deceased) v Ocansey (1993/94)
1GLR 146 CA and invited the court to dismiss the application of the applicant
and substitute the interested party instead of the applicant.<o:p></o:p>Order
4 rule 6 provides that:<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(1) Where
a party dies or become, bankrupt but the cause of action survives, the action
shall not abate by reason of the death or bankruptcy.<o:p></o:p>(2) Where at any stage of the proceeding the
interest or liability of any party is assigned or transmitted to or devolves &nbsp;upon some other person, the Court may, for the
effective and complete determination of matters in dispute, order that other
person to be substituted for the first-named party...<o:p></o:p>In
the instant case, there is no doubt that the cause of action has survived the 2nd
defendant herein who is now deceased. The question is: between the applicant
and the interested party who is the rightful person to be substituted?<o:p></o:p>Order
66 rule 13 of CI 47 provides:<o:p></o:p>“Where
a person dies intestate on or after 14th June, 1985, the person who
have beneficial interest in the estate of the deceased shall be entitled to a
grant of letters of administration in the following order of Priority<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
any surviving spouse;<o:p></o:p>