UBI ENERGY GHANA LIMITED vs. QUANTUM TERMINALS GROUP AND 6 OTHERS [2020]DLHC10529

Date	2020-11-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ/0863/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10529

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) J.

REINDORF TWUMASI ANKRAH ESQ. WITH EDINAM AMA ABUSAH ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT

DANIEL AMANKWAH ESQ. H/B FOR A. K. OSEI WUSU ESQ. FOR 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH AND 7TH DEFENDANTS PRESENT

MICHAEL GAVEH ESQ. FOR 5TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT

BENJAMIN KPAKPO SACKAR ESQ. FOR 6TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT

[2020]DLHC10529
																																						<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" >UBI ENERGY GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>QUANTUM TERMINALS GROUP AND 6 OTHERS<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;">

SUIT NO: GJ/0863/2020 &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:
10TH
NOVEMBER, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>REINDORF TWUMASI ANKRAH ESQ., WITH
EDINAM AMA ABUSAH ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>DANIEL AMANKWAH ESQ., H/B FOR A. K.
OSEI WUSU ESQ., FOR 1ST, 2ND, 3RD, 4TH
AND 7TH DEFENDANTS PRESENT<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL GAVEH ESQ., FOR 5TH
DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT<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;">

BENJAMIN
KPAKPO SACKAR ESQ., FOR 6TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER
LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU, (MRS.) J.<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: 12pt 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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:12.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;MOTION ON
NOTICE FOR AN ORDER TO STRIKE OUT THE 6TH DEFENDANT AS A PARTY TO
THE SUIT BY REASON OF MISJOINDER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I have
taken into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel, the pleadings
and relevant laws.<span style="font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> <o:p></o:p>Order
4 rule 5 (2) of C.I. 47 <span style="font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">gives the Court the discretion in any given
case to order any person who has been improperly joined to the action to cease
to be a party or join a party whose presence before it is necessary in order to
enable it to dispose of effectually and completely, all matters in controversy
in the cause or matter: See the case of ABROKWAH VRS AKUNOR [2013] 63 G.M.J 77.&nbsp; The object of Order 4 of C.I. 47 is thus to
enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all
questions involved so as to render unnecessary a multiplicity of proceedings.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
question, which must be determined, is whether the presence of the 6th Defendant/Applicant
(hereafter referred to as the 6th Defendant) is necessary in order
that the Court may effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all
the questions involved in the claim by the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<span style="font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">In this case the Plaintiff
(hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff)<span style="font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> has made it clear in
its pleadings that the action has been brought against the 6th Defendant.&nbsp;&nbsp; It alleges that the 6th Defendant
has directly or indirectly through its agents and work personnel trespassed
onto its land and used the land for years to its detriment. According
to the Plaintiff it is this act of the 6th Defendant that propelled
it to issue this Writ of Summons against it.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<span style="font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The version of the 6th
Defendant on the other hand is that on the face of the Plaintiff’s statement of
claim and the fact that the Plaintiff’s entire claim is based on the faulty
premise that it encroached on its land from August 2016 to April, 2020 in a
capacity as the EPC contractor on the project, the Plaintiff’s claim has no
legs to stand on and raises legally no justifiable cause of action against it.<o:p></o:p>The
two versions are wholly irreconcilable and in my view this issue can be
resolved after there has been a hearing. Clearly the presence of the 6th
Defendant is necessary to effectuate the purpose prescribed in Order 4 rule 5
(2) of C.I. 47. I <span style="font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">accordingly agree with the Plaintiff’s counsel
that the presence of the
6th Defendant is required in order to enable the court effectually
and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the matter
before it. The application to strike out the name of the 6th
Defendant as a party to the suit therefore fails. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It
is accordingly
dismissed.&nbsp; I award costs of GHC 2,500
against the 6th Defendant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;H/L.
</main>