MICHAEL MENSAH vs. THEOVISION INTERNATIONAL AND REV. THEODORA M. ASARE [2019]DLHC10302

Date	2019-01-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/0116/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10302

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

JONATHAN QUAYE COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT ABSENT

JULIUS NKETIA COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANT PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10302
																																						<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" >MICHAEL MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THEOVISION INTERNATIONAL AND REV. THEODORA M. ASARE<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. IL/0116/18&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: 16TH
JANUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JULIUS NKETIA, COUNSEL FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HER LADYSHIP
JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;MOTION ON
NOTICE TO STRIKE OUT 2ND DEFENDANT AS A PARTY TO THIS SUIT.<o:p></o:p>X&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;X&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;
X&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;
X<o:p></o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>The
2nd defendant/applicant has requested this Court to strike out his
name from the Writ of Summons on the ground that he is only an officer of the 1st
defendant company which is the employer of the plaintiff/respondent and also,
that his presence in the suit as a defendant is not really necessary for the
determination of the suit on its merits.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/respondent has opposed this request even though he acknowledges in
his affidavit in opposition that the substantive suit is in real essence an
employee and employer matter.<o:p></o:p>The
Court has considered all the submissions of both counsel and also perused the
affidavits of both parties plus all annexures and it agrees with the
submissions of counsel for 2nd defendant/applicant that the
substantive motion is essentially an employer/employee matter and since the
plaintiff/respondent acknowledges that he was employed by the 1st
defendant, the presence of the 2nd defendant/applicant is really not
necessary for the determination of matters in controversy between the plaintiff
and the 1st defendant.<o:p></o:p>In
the circumstances the application to strike out the 2nd defendant as
a party is granted as prayed. There is no award of costs.<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; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

</main>