KOFI ADJEI-DADZIE AND ERIC ANSU vs. TELEFONIKA GHANA LIMITED, HAISSAM EL DOWI AND ABIGAIL MENSAH BOADI [2019]DLHC10290

KOFI ADJEI-DADZIE AND ERIC ANSU vs. TELEFONIKA GHANA LIMITED, HAISSAM EL DOWI A... [2019]DLHC10290

Date	2019-02-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/022/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10290

HER LADYSHIP ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

[2019]DLHC10290
																																						<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" >KOFI ADJEI-DADZIE AND ERIC ANSU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TELEFONIKA GHANA LIMITED, HAISSAM EL DOWI AND ABIGAIL MENSAH
BOADI<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<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;">

SUIT NO. IL/022/2019&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: 15TH FEBRUARY 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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;">

HER LADYSHIP ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE TO STRIKE OUT
NAMES OF 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS.<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;">

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

</div>&nbsp;The High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, provides per Order 4 rule 5 (2) (a) as follows:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;5 (2) “At
any stage of proceedings the Court may on such terms as it thinks just either &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;of its own motion or on application <o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp; order any person who has been
improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who for any reason is no longer a
party or a necessary party to cease to be a party”.<o:p></o:p>The 2nd and 3rd
defendants/applicants have requested this Court to strike out their names from
the present suit because they are mere employees of the first defendant and
that whatever actions they carried out against the plaintiffs herein were
actions done on behalf of the 1st defendant, their employer which is
a corporate entity with a legal existence of its own, capable of suing and
being sued.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs/respondents have opposed
this application on the ground that it is misconceived and should be dismissed.<o:p></o:p>The Court has considered the affidavits
of both parties and the submissions of both counsel and the Court agrees with
the submissions of the counsel for the applicants that the 2nd and 3rd
defendants/applicants are not necessary parties to this action because they are
just employees of the 1st defendant and whatever actions the 2nd
and 3rd defendants took against the plaintiffs were done on behalf
of the 1st defendant, their principal.<o:p></o:p>This Court believes that the plaintiffs
can equally make a claim against the 1st defendant for the amount of
GH₵4,000.00
which the plaintiffs claim they paid to the 3rd defendant since the
2nd and 3rd defendants, per their affidavit in opposition
acknowledge that the said money was paid to the 1st defendant by the
3rd defendant.<o:p></o:p>In the light of the foregoing, the
application to strike out the names of the 2nd and 3rd
defendants is granted on ground of misjoinder. The plaintiffs are to amend
their Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim to reflect the change. No cost
awarded against plaintiffs/respondents.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(SGD)<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS)<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

</main>