CHAMPION BROAD CASTING LTD v. MULTI-CHOICE GHANA LTD & ORS

RULING

The 1st and 2nd defendants have brought this instant application to have the 2nd defendant disjoined from this suit. The motion is supported by affidavit. I wish to quote the relevant paragraphs in this ruling:

(3) The instant suit discloses no cause of action against the 2nd defendant as it seeks reliefs against the 2nd defendant for actions performed in the course of a criminal investigation by the Ghana Police Service into the activities of the plaintiff.

(4) The plaintiff by its own pleadings states that the operation complained of was conducted with policemen in uniform and rightfully addresses the 2nd defendant as a Deputy Superintendent of Police which is indeed the office/designation of the 2nd defendant

(5) The 2nd defendant is not a proper party to be sued in respect of official acts of the Ghana Police Service in which he participated in his official capacity.

(6) The reliefs sought against the 2nd defendant including the recovery of items seized by the police cannot be recovered from the 2nd defendant.

(7) The second defendant has no personal interest in the dispute and therefore cannot be a proper defendant to the instant action.

(8) That I am also advised and verily believe same to be true that action brought against the second defendant to hold him personally liable for actions of the police in which he was involved in the course of his duties as a police officer is improper and unlawful and ought not to be entertained by this honourable Court.

The plaintiff/respondent resisted the application by filing affidavit in opposition. I wish to quote the relevant paragraphs in this ruling:

11. That I verily believe that, the present legal representation for the second defendant is inconsistent with the case put up by the 2nd defendant/applicant.

12. That the immediately preceding paragraph is repeated and the plaintiff/Respondent adds that, the 2nd defendant acted as and indeed was a surrogate of the 1st defendant/applicant who was on the frolic of his own.

13.That the conduct of the defendants/applicants is illegal and unlawful and all the defendants ought to be given the opportunity to defend themselves before the honourable Court.

When the motion came up for hearing on 28-11-06, Counsel for the applicant repeated all the averments in the application and added that, the 2nd defendant was performing his official functions when the items of the plaintiff were seized.

He added that, even if the second defendant exceeded his dut