Try asking the following...
RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE FOR JOINDER OF NANA AKWASI AGYEMANG
The Applicant Nana Akwasi Agyeman filed the instant application on the 20/07/2022 praying this Court to be joined as the 3rd Defendant on the grounds that he has an interest in the land in dispute situate and lying at Katamanso in the Greater Accra Region.
The Applicant averred that he is the person referred in Paragraph 14 of the 1st Defendant Statement of Defence as the 3rd party who acquired his interest in the land, the subject matter of the instant application and based on same it is proper that he be joined to the suit to ensure that all the matter in issue are effectively and finally resolved.
The Applicant attached receipts evidencing payment for the subject matter as Exhibit 1 series being cheques from Unibank and Standard Chartered Bank respectively.
The Plaintiff opposed the application on grounds that the Applicant’s interest in the matter is represented by the 1st Defendant in Paragraph 6 of their Affidavit in Opposition filed on the 15/12/2022. The 1st Defendant also filed an Affidavit in Opposition dated 8/09/2022 and opposed the instant application on the basis that Applicant has purchased the land from the 1st Defendant, but due to delay had lost the originally assigned plot.
That Applicant had been subsequently offered another plot but had refused same and thus was not a necessary party to the instant suit as instituted by the Defendant.
Order 4 Rule 5 (2) b and of C. 1 47 on —Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties is as follows: (2) At any stage of proceedings the Court may on such terms as itthinks just either of its own motion or on application(b) order any person who ought to have been joined as a party orwhose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that allmatters in dispute in the proceedings are effectively and completelydetermined and adjudicated upon to be added as a party.
In AGO SAI & OTHERS VRS. KPOBI TETTEH TSURU III [2010] SCGLR 762 at 807, Dotse JSC spoke the mind of the Supreme Court thus; “The test was laid out by the Supreme Court in the case of Sam (no. 1)v. Attorney-General [2000] 102 where the majority of the SupremeCourt (per Ampiah JSC, Atuguba dissenting) held as follows: “Generally speaking, the court will make all such changes in respect ofparties as may be necessary to enable an effectual adjudication to bemade concerning all the matters in dispute.
In other words, the courtmay add all persons whose presence before the court is n