Try asking the following...
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED BY 1ST AND 3RD DEFENDANTS.
Counsel for the Plaintiff Your Ladyship, the business for today is to move our injunction application but Your Ladyship, we were served with Preliminary Objection filed by 1st and 3rd Defendants on the 16/01/2023 Counsel for 1st and 3rd Defendants Your Ladyship, the first point is that the 2nd Defendant or the body which was sued by the Plaintiff does not exist in law and where a party sues a non-existent entity, the writ is a nullity.
I refer to the case of Nii Kpobi Tettey Tsuru III (substituted by Nii Obodai Adai IV) & 2 ors v. Agric Cattle & 4 ors [2019-2020] SCGLR 110. The point was made in holding 4 at page 113. To the extent that the body which has been sued by the Plaintiff as the 2nd Defendant is a non-existent entity, the law only recognises legal entities which can sue and be sued.
Your Ladyship, our position is that the entity that was sued as a 2nd Defendant is non-existent and makes the writ null and void.
Courts do not make orders in vain.
The other point is that this application is grounded on a document which the Plaintiff says is the Constitution of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union.
Your Ladyship, what was exhibited is not the Constitution of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union.
Only excerpts of what is said to be the Constitution of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union was attached.
The other point is that the Plaintiff exhibited EXHIBIT EK3 being the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company Limited (BOST) and the Commercial Worker’s Union Ghana Voters’ Register say that we do not know its source and cannot speak to it.
Your Ladyship, that document has no indication as to its source.
Nothing on the face shows where it is coming for.
It bears no stamp, insignia or marking from the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union.
Counsel for Plaintiff Your Ladyship, on ground one, the said 2nd Defendant/Respondent is a creation of the 1st Defendant.
Your Ladyship, will notice that the 1st Defendant is their union.
The 2nd Defendant is an agent of Industrial and Commercial Workers Union and we are moving an application for Injunction which is in personam and the body affected must be served directly.
We have added them because the Injunction will affect them directly.
Your Ladyship, we do not have any problem if Counsel wants the 2nd Defendant removed as a party as the injunction will still affect them.
Your Ladyship, Counsel has not pointed out