ABBEYMAN FAMILY & NAA DODI AKAIBI III v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LANDS COMM & LANDLINE PROPERTIES LTD
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, Mr. Daniyal Abdul-Karim and Amadu Rufai sought to be joined as Defendants in a land dispute case under Order 4 Rule 5(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47). The argument was based on their possession of land title certificates obtained from the 2nd Defendant, making any court judgment impactful on their interest. The Plaintiffs opposed the application, asserting the Applicants' interest mirrored that of the 2nd Defendant and would cause unnecessary delays. The court examined the provisions for joinder under CI 47 and previous related cases, concluding that the Applicants' presence was necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the case. The court thus granted the application for joinder, adding Abdul-Karim and Rufai as 3rd and 4th Defendants.
RULING
APPLICATION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO ORDER 4 RULE 5(2) OF CI 47
Introduction
The parties in this suit have all filed their witness statements and presently there is an ongoing mini trial to determine who has the capacity to sue as Plaintiff as the parties (Plaintiffs) are unable to agree by themselves.
By a Motion on Notice filed at the registry of this Court on January 10, 2019, Mr. Daniyal Abdul-Karim and one Amadu Rufai, by their lawyers are seeking an order under Order 4 Rule 5(2) (b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) to be joined in this suit as the Defendants.
It is enacted in Order 4 r 5(2) (b) of CI 47“(2) At any stage of proceedings the Court may on such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or on application order any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the proceedings are effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon to be added as a party.”
The 2nd Defendant/Respondent has not taken any position in regards to the grant or otherwise of the application. The 1st Defendant, Lands Commission has always been absent despite the service of hearing notices. The Plaintiffs are however opposed to the grant of the application.
ii. Arguments for and against the grant of the Application:
In moving the application learned Counsel for the Applicants, Mr. Samani Zakari relied on the depositions as contained in the affidavit in support of the application and the attached exhibits. The pith and substance of the prayer is that the Applicants acquired the land in dispute from the 2nd Defendant and went ahead to obtain a land title certificate and are in possession of same. According to Mr. Zakari the 2nd Defendant has assigned its interest to the Applicants who have gone ahead to register their interest in accordance with law. Copies of the Land Certificates have been attached as Exhibit “DAK Series” to the application.
According to the Applicants it is necessary that they be joined to the suit because any order or judgment shall have an impact on them and therefore they should be heard as title holders who the 2nd Defendant has assigned its interest to. Counsel cited the Supreme Court case of SAM (No.1) v. ATTORNEY GENERAL [2000] SCGLR 104 and BONSU v BONSU (1971) 2 GLR 242 to support his submission. Mr. Zakari further submitted that prior to this action, in an earlier suit the 2nd Defendant’s title was