ANTHONY ATTIOGBE vs GEORGE KWAME GYAN & ORS

By a motion on notice for joinder filed on 17th February, 2022, the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicants”) supplicate this Honourable Court to join SABAH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT LTD and GOD’S CITY ESTATES DEVELOPERS as 4th and 5th Defendants respectively. Counsel for the Applicants moved the application in terms of the motion paper and the accompanying affidavit.

The Rules of Court relative to applications for Joinder are very explicit and admit of no ambiguity whatsoever. Order 4 Rule 5(2)(b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) provides:

“5. (2) At any stage of proceedings the Court may on such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or on application

(b) 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.”

Therefore, the Court has power, after a suit has been filed, to join any person who ought to have sued or to have been sued in the first instance or to join any person whose presence is necessary or required to ensure that the entire dispute is “effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon”.

Consequently, with applications for Joinder, if and only if, a person’s presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that a dispute is effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon, that person may be added as a party. This position of the law is supported by legal authorities including:

· Coleman v Shang [1959] GLR 390 C/A;

· Ussher v Darko [1977] 1 GLR 476 C/A and

· Howden v Yorkshire Miners’ Association [1903] 1 KB 308

In stating the raison d’etré for the application, the learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that, from the pleadings of Plaintiff/1st Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the 1st Respondent”) and the pleadings of 1st and 2nd Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the 1st and 2nd Applicants” respectively), it is clear that, SABAH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT LTD is the grantor of GOD’S CITY ESTATES DEVELOPERS as well as the grantor of EMMANLENE ENTERPRISE (the 2nd Applicant).

It is also contended that GOD’S CITY ESTATES DEVELOPERS granted the disputed land to the Plaintiff in 2013 as well as 2nd Defendant in 2017. Therefore, it is further contended that GOD’S CITY ESTATES DEVELOPERS is a necessary party to explain the basis on which it grant