FADNET GROUP LIMITED vs. GHANA STANDARDS AUTHORITY, ALBERT QUAYSON, WILLIAM CONSTRUCTION AND RAHBERT CIVIL ENGINEERINGS [2019]DLHC7667

FADNET GROUP LIMITED vs. GHANA STANDARDS AUTHORITY, ALBERT QUAYSON, WILLIAM CONS... [2019]DLHC7667

Date	2019-05-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ 1725/2016
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7667

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU J.

AFUA BOATENG H/B FOR NANCY AMARTEFIO FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT

G. H. QUIST FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC7667
																																						<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" >FADNET GROUP LIMITED<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA STANDARDS AUTHORITY,
ALBERT QUAYSON, WILLIAM CONSTRUCTION AND RAHBERT CIVIL ENGINEERINGS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT 4), ACCRA]<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">

SUIT NO: GJ 1725/2016 &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; &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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
17TH MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AFUA BOATENG H/B FOR NANCY AMARTEFIO FOR
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">

G. H. QUIST FOR 1ST
DEFENDANT/APPLICANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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">

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG
OWUSU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>This is an application by the 1st
defendant/applicant (hereafter referred to as the 1st defendant)
praying for an order to strike out its name for misjoinder.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the affidavit in support of the application it
averred that on the 15th of November, 2016 the plaintiff/respondent
(hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) who was sued in a case titled HABIZ
COMPANY VRS FADNET GROUP LIMITED
GJ/1458/2016 sought to join it and a certain Albert Quayson to the said
action.&nbsp; On 12th of December,
2016 the Court presided over by Her Ladyship Ayene J. dismissed the application
for joinder with the reason that there was no privity of contract between it
and the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>According to the 1st defendant 8 days
after the ruling of Ayene J. the plaintiff instituted the present action
against it based on the same facts.&nbsp; It
was the contention of the 1st defendant that since the plaintiff has
not taken any step to set aside the ruling of Ayene J. or appeal against same
it has been improperly made a party to this suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It therefore prayed that its name be struck out
for misjoinder with punitive costs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiff vigorously opposed the
application.&nbsp; It’s case was that in or
about January, 2015 it was engaged by the 2nd defendant on behalf of
the 1st defendant to manufacture and fix furniture on a project for
the completion of a pesticide residue laboratory and office block.&nbsp;&nbsp; It agreed with the 2nd
defendant’s proposal that it should pre-finance the project for some months and
that it will be reimbursed by the 1st defendant within a few
months.&nbsp; It maintained that although it
completed and handed over the project to the 1st defendant, the 1st
defendant defaulted in paying it the balance of monies for the work done.&nbsp; It continued that due to the default of the 1st
defendant it was unable to meet its financial obligations thereby resulting in
the suit before Ayene J.&nbsp; It conceded
that its failure to establish the relationship it had with the 1st
defendant occasioned the dismissal of the application for joinder by Ayene
J.&nbsp; It contended that in the suit before
Ayene J. the 1st defendant admitted having a contractual
relationship with it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiff also pressed the point that the
parties and subject matter of the present suit are not the same as the parties
and subject matter of the suit before Ayene J.&nbsp;
&nbsp;It explained that whereas in the
previous suit it was sued by its creditors to recover monies owed them in the
present suit it rather seeks to recover monies owed it by the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the plaintiff on the 19th
of October, 2018, it filed a proposed amended Statement of Claim which
reflected a substantial change in the subject matter between the parties.&nbsp; It invited the Court to refuse the
application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned counsel for both parties made a number of
submissions, which will be summarized.&nbsp;
Put in a nutshell it wa</main>