THE LIVING FAITH WORLD OUTREACH CENTRE & 2 ORS vs. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND 13 ORS [2020]DLCA10802

THE LIVING FAITH WORLD OUTREACH CENTRE & 2 ORS vs. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND 13... [2020]DLCA10802

Date	2020-11-30
Suit No.	CONSOLIDATED APPEAL NO.H1/64/2019 H1/192/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLCA10802

TANKO AMADU JSC (PRESIDING)

MARGARET WELBOURNE (JA)

OBENG-MANU JNR. (JA)

SIBIRI EDMOND KARDIRI ESQ.(LED BY THADDEUS SORY ESQ.) (FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS).

NANA KYEKYE DARKO (FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS EXCEPT 3RD AND 8TH DEFENDANTS)

COUNSEL FOR 9TH DEFENDANT/APPELLANT - ABSENT.

[2020]DLCA10802
																																						<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" >THE LIVING FAITH WORLD
OUTREACH CENTRE &amp; 2 ORS&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND
13 ORS&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; <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION),
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%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CONSOLIDATED APPEAL
NO.H1/64/2019 H1/192/2019 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:&nbsp;
30TH NOVEMBER 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>SIBIRI
EDMOND KARDIRI ESQ.(LED BY THADDEUS SORY, ESQ.) (FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS).<o:p></o:p>NANA
KYEKYE DARKO (FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS EXCEPT 3RD AND 8TH
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;">

<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">COUNSEL
FOR 9TH DEFENDANT/APPELLANT&nbsp;
-&nbsp; ABSENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>TANKO AMADU JSC (PRESIDING), MARGARET
WELBOURNE (JA), OBENG-MANU JNR. (JA)<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;TANKO
AMADU JSC<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
This appeal is from the judgment of the High Court,
dated 28/7/2017 the record of appeal reveals that the judgment appealed from was
delivered in two (2) consolidated suits. At the Trial Court, the suits are Numbered
BMISC 877/2004 and AHR 9/2005 respectively. Suit Number BMISC 877/2004 is entitled LIVING FAITH WORLD OUTREACH
CENTRE &amp; 7 OTHERS VS. GEORGE AGYEMAN &amp; 9 OTHERS while Suit Number AHR 9/2005 is entitled LIVING
FAITH OUTREACH CENTRE &amp; 2 OTHERS VS. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL &amp; 14 OTHERS.
The Trial Court delivered one judgment in respect of the two suits. I shall
deal with the issues arising from the consolidation of the two suits
subsequently. At this point, however, it is necessary to put the consolidated appeal
into perspective. <o:p></o:p><a name="_Toc44432320">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
PARTIES TO
THE APPEAL</a><o:p></o:p>The 1st
and 2nd Appellants in the appeals before this Court are two companies.
The two companies referred are known as; LIVING FAITH OUTREACH CENTRE AND WORLD MISSION AGENCY. They are
also the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in the two suits
consolidated in the Trial Court. The other Appellants are a number of
individuals. The individuals who joined these companies as Plaintiffs in the
two suits are members of a church established by the 1st Plaintiff/ Appellant.
This church is known as ‘Winners Chapel’. These individuals used to worship with the individual Defendants mentioned
in the two suits in the same church called Winners Chapel until they parted
ways. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
At the inception of the suit, all the Defendants
including 5th, 8th and 9th Defendants in Suit
Number BMISC 877/2004 were represented by Lynnes Quarshie Idun &amp; Co.
Subsequently, however, 5th, 8th and 9th Defendants
who initially were not served with the Writ of Summons changed their lawyers
and appointed Messrs Otoo Kotey &amp; Associates as their lawyers. The 5th
and 9th Defendants subsequently filed a separate defence to the two
suits. These Defendants have also appealed against the judgment of the Trial
Court. From the record, the 8th Defendant did not participate in the
proceedings through he was duly served with all the processes.&nbsp; Thus at the hearing of the appeal, the two
appeals were consolidated for this court to deliver one judgment in respect of
the two appeals from one record.<o:p></o:p>