MAWULI MUSTAPHA BRAIMAH vs. OLAM GHANA LIMITED & ANOR. [2019]DLHC10301

Date	2019-06-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/060/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10301

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS)

NAA AMAKUMA BARNOR HOLDING BRIEF FOR NANA ADJEI BAFFOUR AWUAH

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT

FRANK ASAMOAH HOLDING BRIEF FOR ISAAC OSEI BONSU

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10301
																																						<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" >MAWULI
MUSTAPHA BRAIMAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OLAM
GHANA LIMITED &amp; ANOR.<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;">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NAA AMAKUMA BARNOR
HOLDING BRIEF FOR NANA ADJEI BAFFOUR AWUAH, COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF 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;">

FRANK
ASAMOAH HOLDING BRIEF FOR ISAAC OSEI BONSU, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS PRESENT<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 0cm 1pt;">

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

</div>&nbsp;MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER STRIKING
OUT 2ND DEFENDANT FOR MISJOINDER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;RULING<o:p></o:p>This
application is a request by the 1st defendant for an order of the
Court to strike out the name of the 2nd defendant on the ground that
the said 2nd defendant has been wrongly joined to the suit. In its
affidavit attached to the motion paper the applicant insists that though the
plaintiff/respondent was seconded to the 2nd defendant company, he
at all material times remained the employee of the 1st defendant and
that the termination of the Plaintiff’s appointment was at the instance of the
1st defendant and therefore the presence of the 2nd defendant
in this suit is not really necessary for the determination of the matters in
controversy between the parties. It was also the case of the applicants that the
pleadings of the plaintiff do not disclose any cause of action against the 2nd
defendant as the matters in dispute are between an employee and an employer, in
this case the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/respondent is opposed to the application on the ground that the 2nd
defendant ought to be kept as a party to the suit in order for the Court to
pronounce on the propriety or otherwise of the 2nd defendant’s act
of purporting to terminate, on behalf of the 1st defendant, the
appointment of the plaintiff/respondent.<o:p></o:p>This
Court has carefully considered the affidavit evidence of both parties and has
perused all their attached exhibits and has also considered the submissions of
both learned Counsel and the Court is of the opinion that the presence of the 2nd
defendant is not necessary for the determination of the claims of the
plaintiff. It is clear from the exhibits of both parties that the plaintiff was
appointed by the 1st defendant and his appointment was also
terminated by the said 1st defendant. Despite the fact that the
letter of termination was written on the letterhead of the 2nd
defendant, the contents thereof shows that it was written at the behest of the
1st defendant. <o:p></o:p>In
the light of the above reasons this Court grants the present application and
therefore strikes out the name of the 2nd defendant from the Writ
and Statement of Claim. The Plaintiff is to amend the title of the suit to
reflect the fact that the name of the 2nd defendant has been struck
out. The matter is to take its normal course.<o:p></o:p>(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;&nbsp;&nbsp;

</main>