RONALD OPPONG ADOM vs. TAWIAH BEN-AHMED AD METROPOLITAN HEALTH INSURANCE GHANA LTD. [2019]DLHC10328

RONALD OPPONG ADOM vs. TAWIAH BEN-AHMED AD METROPOLITAN HEALTH INSURANCE GHANA... [2019]DLHC10328

Date	2019-04-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/048/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10328

HER LADYSHIP ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

[2019]DLHC10328
																																						<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" >RONALD
OPPONG ADOM<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TAWIAH
BEN-AHMED AD METROPOLITAN HEALTH INSURANCE<o:p></o:p>GHANA
LTD.<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;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/048/2019&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 8TH
APRIL, 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 0cm 1pt;">

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

</div>&nbsp;APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO STRIKE OUT THE
NAME OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT BY REASON OF MISJOINDER<o:p></o:p>Ruling<o:p></o:p>It is provided by order 4 rule 5 sub rule 2(a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“At any stage of proceedings the Court may on
such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or on application 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 instant application is a request by
the 1st defendant /applicant (hereinafter called the applicant) for
his name to be struck out as a party to the substantive suit on ground that he
is not a true and necessary party to the present suit because all acts
purported to have been by him were done in his official capacity as the
Managing Director of the 2nd defendant company and not in his
personal capacity.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter
called the respondent) has opposed this request, saying that the applicant
“acted in excess of his powers when he acted as the Managing Director of the 2nd
defendant company in taking decisions that culminated in the unlawful
termination of the plaintiff’s appointment when he knew or ought to have known
that he was not the Managing Director of the 2nd defendant company”.
The respondent further says that the applicant is not even an officer of the 2nd
defendant company. The respondent therefore requests the Court to maintain the
applicant as a party to the suit to enable him answer all allegations that have
been levelled against him and that this will enable the suit to be effectively
and effectually determined by the Court.<o:p></o:p>The Court has considered the affidavits
of both parties and has also adverted its mind to the submissions of both
Counsel and the Court is of the opinion that the reliefs the
plaintiff/respondent is seeking are really against the 2nd defendant
company and that the 1st defendant who only acted as an officer of
the 2nd defendant cannot be held personally liable for any actions
he is purported to have undertaken on behalf of the 2nd defendant
company.<o:p></o:p>The Court is thus of the opinion that
the presence of the applicant (1st defendant) is not really
necessary for the determination of the substantive suit. The Court exercises
its discretion under order 4 rule 5 (2)(a) as quoted above and thus grants the
application to strike out the name of the 1st defendant from the
present suit. There is no award of cost against the plaintiff/respondent. <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;</main>