2023
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiffs/Appellants challenged a High Court ruling that set aside their amended writ after the 4th–7th Defendants/Applicants had been joined. The trial court found the process defective because the amended writ listed all seven defendants, but the attached statement of claim still listed only three defendants and predated the amendment. On appeal, Janapare A. Bartels‑Kodwo JA, writing for the Court of Appeal, held that under Ghana’s Civil Procedure Rules (C.I. 47) a writ and statement of claim are “Siamese twins” that must travel together; thus, an order to amend the writ after joinder requires a corresponding amendment to the statement of claim. Relying on Agbesi v GPHA and Ayivah v Badu, the court emphasized strict compliance with joinder/amendment orders and rejected waiver arguments tied to defendants’ appearance and defence. Because the appellants did not rectify the defect within seven days, the appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
BARTELS-KODWO J.A
Following an application by the 4th – 7th Defendants/Applicants praying the trial court
for an Order to dismiss the instant action and or to strike out the Amended Writ of
Summons dated 15th August, 2016 purporting to annex a Statement of Claim dated 29th
May, 2015, the trial High Court granted same and set aside the Writ citing same to be
defective because though the amended Writ had the names of all (7) seven Defendants,
the attached Statement of Claim had only the names of (3) three of the defendants and
was dated 29th May, 2015 as against the Amended Writ which was dated 15th August,
Dissatisfied with that Ruling of the Court dated 28th February, 2019 the
Plaintiffs/Appellants filed an amended Notice of Appeal dated 30th April, 2021,
pursuant to a court order of 27th April, 2021 seeking to set aside the ruling and to have
the suit restored to the record for trial.
Their single ground of Appeal is that the Ruling is unwarranted by Order 4 of the High
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 CI 47 and the related provisions which deal with
joinder of parties under the High Court Rules.
The Plaintiffs will be known as the Appellants in this ruling and the Defendants as the
Respondents.
Brief Facts:
From the Record it is clear that upon a grant of an application for joinder to the Suit by
the 4th -7th Respondents same was granted and the Appellant directed to amend the suit
to include the newly joined parties i.e. the 5th , 6th, and 7th Respondents. This was done
and a photocopy of the Statement of Claim was attached to the Writ and this was
served on the Respondents. See ROA 39-41 & ROA 49-54.This was followed by the
Defendants/Respondents entering appearance and filing their Defence to which the
Appellants also filed their Reply.
Following this, the application resulting in the Ruling in contention here was granted
with the reasons earlier mentioned in this present Ruling stating why the Suit ought to
be set aside since what actually occurred was that the Writ was amended but the
accompanying Statement of Claim was not amended to reflect the parties in the Suit.
Appellant’s arguments:
The Appellant refers to Order 4 Rule 5 of CI 47 the High Court Civil Procedure Rules
2004 as the relevant provisions that guide parties upon an Order for joinder on how
they should proceed. See below:
5. (1) No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of any
party; and the Court may in any