FBN BANK GHANA LIMITED v. ROE COMPANY LIMITED & RHODA OBIRI YEBOAH, APPLICANT: DAISY OBIRI YEBOAH
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Daisy Obiri Yeboah applied for joinder in a property dispute case, claiming joint ownership of a mortgaged property with her late husband. Both Plaintiff and Defendants opposed her request. The court considered whether her presence was necessary for effective adjudication and concluded it was not, thus dismissing the application. The court referred to various precedents and legal principles related to joinder but found no sufficient basis to include the Applicant as a necessary party.
APPLICATION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO ORDER 4 RULE 5(2) OF CI 47
i. Introduction:
[1] By a Motion on Notice filed at the registry of this Court on April 4, 2019, the Applicant, Daisy Obiri Yeboah is praying this Court for an order under Order 4 Rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) for her to be joined as a Defendant in this suit. The grounds for the application are catalogued in an initial 17 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Adawudu supporting the motion paper and a further Supplementary Affidavit of one Jerry Asem, a Law Clerk at the Applicant’s Counsel’s office.
[2] It is enacted in Order 4 Rule 3 of CI 47 titled Joinder of Parties as follows:
“3. (1) Subject to rule 4 of this Order, two or more persons may be joined together in the same action as plaintiffs or as defendants without leave of Court, where
(a) if separate actions were brought by or against each of them, some common question of law or fact would arise in all the actions: and
(b) all rights to relief claimed in the action whether they are joint, several or in the alternative are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.
(2) Where the plaintiff in any action, other than a probate action, claims any relief to which any other person is entitled jointly with the plaintiff, all persons so entitled shall, subject to the provisions of any enactment and unless the Court gives leave to the contrary, be parties to the action and any of them who does not consent to being joined as a plaintiff shall, subject to any order made by the Court on an application for leave under this sub rule, be made a defendant.
(3) Where relief is claimed in an action against a defendant who is jointly liable with some other person, not severally liable, that other person need not be made a defendant to the action; but where persons are jointly, but not severally liable under a contract and relief is claimed against some but not all of those persons in an action in respect of that contract, the Court may, on the application of any defendant to the action, by order stay proceedings in the action until the other persons who are liable are added as defendants.”
The Plaintiff and the Defendants are opposed to the application and have therefore urged the Court to dismiss the application as unmeritorious and award cost against the Applicant.
ii. Arguments for and against the grant of the Application:
[3] In moving the appl