CYNBERT INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL LTD vs. MR. ODARTEY AND 9 OTHERS [2021]DLHC11703

Date	2021-12-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IRL/513/2010
Citation No.	[2021]DLHC11703

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE SOLOMON OPPONG-TWUMASI

EVA ANGELINA DANIELS KLU FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT

IRENE MARIA ALLOTEY-ANNAN FOR THE APPLICANT

[2021]DLHC11703
																																						<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" >CYNBERT INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MR. ODARTEY AND 9 OTHERS<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;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. IRL/513/2010&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: 6TH DECEMBER, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>EVA ANGELINA DANIELS KLU FOR THE PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT<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-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:108.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-108.0pt;
border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">IRENE MARIA
ALLOTEY-ANNAN FOR THE APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE SOLOMON OPPONG-TWUMASI<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-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:108.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
text-indent:-108.0pt;line-height:200%;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;1.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
INTRODUCTION:<o:p></o:p>Before this Court is an Application for Joinder
brought by 24 persons (all of whom except only one, are strangers to this suit)
and they are hereinafter called the Applicants and are seeking to join the suit
as Interested Parties.<o:p></o:p>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BACKGROUND:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff/Judgement Creditor/Respondent
(hereafter the Respondent), instituted the present action against ten (10)
other persons including one of the Applicants – the 14th Applicant,
and obtained judgment against them.&nbsp; The
Respondents later filed the Entry of Judgment with the intention of going into
execution of same.<o:p></o:p>1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Respondent further obtained an order of
this Court, albeit differently constituted, to demolish some of the properties
belonging to the Defendants in the judgment aforementioned, (see Exhibit “C” attached to the affidavit
in support of the present application).<o:p></o:p>1.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Later on, the Respondents came back to
this Court, this time presided over by my humble self, and sought to amend
their Entry of Judgment because they got the size of their land wrong in their original
Entry of Judgment.<o:p></o:p>1.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; They further sought leave to serve the Amended
Entry of Judgment by substituted service and this Court graciously granted
their prayer and ordered them to serve the Amended Entry of Judgment through a
publication in the Daily Graphic, which order they duly carried out.<o:p></o:p>1.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It was after the newspaper publication
that the present application has been brought seeking to join the 24 persons
whose names have been listed on the face of the motion paper as Interested
Parties, to the suit.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The application was accompanied by a
13-paragraph supporting affidavit deposed and sworn to by one Selina Dadzie,
the clerk of the lawyers for the Applicants.<o:p></o:p>1.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The summary of he said affidavit evidence
of the Applicants is that the Applicants have issued a writ of summons against
the Respondent in another case in this same High Court with Suit No. LD/0555/2020 and that in the said suit,
this Court, once again presided over by my humble self, has granted the
Applicants’ prayer for an interlocutory injunction against the Respondent in
respect of the same land.<o:p></o:p>1.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; According to the Applicants, out of the
24 Applicants, it was only the 14th applicant in the instant suit
whose name appears in Suit No.
FAL/513/2010 (the case under review) as the 2nd Defendant but
that he was never served with any Court process at all in respect of that suit.<o:p></o:p>1.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Applicants state that the very first
time they became aware of the instant suit was when they sighted the
publication of the motion for Substituted Service in the Daily Graphic, and
that it is because they are apprehensive that the Respondent w</main>