REFLO COMPANY LIMITED vs. ERIC AGYEMANG [2020]DLHC10434

Date	2020-02-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: GJ/863/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10434

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH

[2020]DLHC10434
																																						<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" >REFLO COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ERIC AGYEMANG<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<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%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO.: GJ/863/2019&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;DATE: 17TH
FEBRUARY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH<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="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
tab-stops:4.5pt;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;“It is also the law that for a person to
qualify as a person interested, the applicant must show not only that he is a
person having interest in the matter but also the order or judgment of the
Court below he is seeking leave to appeal against, prejudicially affects his
interest. In other words to succeed in the application, the applicants must
show that they are persons who are aggrieved , or persons who are have suffered
legal grievances, or persons against whom decisions have been pronounced which
have wrongfully deprived them of something or wrongly refused them something or
wrongly affected their title to something.”&nbsp;PER, MAHMUD MOHAMMED,
JSC<o:p></o:p>This
is a ruling pursuant to an application filed on the 17/10/2017 by the
Plaintiff/Applicant herein to join Naket Investment Ghana Limited as 2nd
Defendant in this matter.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The basis of this application is that in the
Defence filed by the Defendant he mentioned that at all material times he acted
on behalf of the proposed 2nd Defendant Naket Investment Ghana
Limited which is incorporated in Ghana and operates its registered offices from
Community 22 Tema.<o:p></o:p>The
law on joinder is clear on the authority of Amon v Raphael Tuck &amp; Sons Limited [1956] 2 WLR 372 that the
test is whether the joinder would answer that all matters in controversy would
be effectively and conveniently determined and adjudicated upon. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It
is to be noted that in the case of Sam v
Attorney General No. 1 Justice Atuguba JSC noted upon the jurisprudential
dilemma faced by judges when it comes to joinder thus – he said;<o:p></o:p>“there has been much judicial wrestling in
here and England over whether this rule should be given a narrow or wide
construction”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In Sam v Attorney General, Ampiah JSC adopted
a restrictive approach when he stated, <o:p></o:p>“Generally speaking the court will make all
such changes in respect of parties as may be necessary to enable an effectual
adjudication to be made concerning all matters in dispute.&nbsp; In other words the court may add all persons
whole presence before the court is necessary in order to enable it effectually
and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the
cause or matter before it.... but this would depend on the issue before the
court that is the nature of the claim”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This
approach is juxtaposed by the attitude to joinder by Kpegah JSC in the case of Ekwan No. 1 (1996/97) SCGLR who urged
a wider approach when he ordered, in that case for an exparte application
to be served on the New Patriotic Party because it would be affected.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Atuguba
JSC in the case of Tsatsu Tsikata v The
Republic 2007/08 SCGLR made a fine point that <o:p></o:p>“a court has the inherent jurisdiction to
join a person to proceedings before it in which such person is interested as a
party or without such joinder order the proceeding to be served on him to
enable him to be heard on the matter as such interested party or to be served
on a person as an amicus curiae whether such person be interested in the
subject matter or not; and provided his presence can assist the court to
resolve the issue at hand.... the common test in all these situations is the interest
of justice”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
fact Atuguba JSC in Tsatsu Tsikata v
Republic 2007/08 SCGLR concluded with this....<o:p></o:p>“It is certainly in the interest of
justice that a party who would be directly affected by the outcome of the
dispute before the court be joined to the proceedings”<o:p></o:p>The
legal position is that in prosecuting civil claims all parties necessary for
the invocation of judicial powers of a court must come before it so as to give
the court jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.&nbsp; This was the position in the Nigerian Supreme
Court case of Awoniyi &amp; Ors. V
The Registered Trustees of the Rosicrucian Oder, AMORC (Nig) [2000] 6 SC (pt.
1).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;As a
court of law and equity the aim of a court in consideration of a joinder
application was to settle matters in a single suit whenever such course was
convenient and could be followed without prejudice to the defendant on the
authority of City Bank v Bretlett 71 Ga.
797 (1883).<o:p></o:p>