GEORGE BERKO VS BASHIRU MORO & 2 ORS
October 17, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
October 17, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this motion before His Lordship Emmanuel Amo Yartey (J), the Defendants/Applicants sought to join Nii Okpelor Sowah Ablorh as a defendant on the basis that he, as the grantor of the 1st Defendants title to the subject land, would be the best person to defend the action. The Plaintiff/Respondent opposed. Reiterating joinder principles aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the court stated that only those whose presence is necessary to effectually and completely determine and adjudicate the dispute should be added, and that a necessary party must have a direct interest in the subject matter rather than a remote connection. On the Applicants own submission, any interest Ablorh had in the land had been transferred to the 1st Defendant. Recognizing authority that the grantor is best placed to defend a grantees interest, the court concluded the proper course is to call the grantor as a witness rather than join him as a party, and dismissed the application.
Per the instant Application the Defendants/Applicants are seeking an order of the
Court joining one Nii Okpelor Sowah Ablorh as a Defendant in this suit.
According to the Applicants the said Nii Okpelor Sowah Ablorh is the grantor of
the 1st Defendant for which reason he will be the best person to defend the action.
The Application was resisted by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
It is trite law that in order to check against multiplicity of suits, anyone whose presence before the Court is necessary or to ensure that the dispute is effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon must be added to the suit.
See Bonsu v Bonsu [1971] 2 GLR 242 and Enimil IV Ashanti [2012] 39 MLRG 48.
I take this to mean that the proper person to bring or defend an action must be someone who has an interest in the subject matter in dispute to make such a person a necessary party to such an action.
This therefore means that not anybody who is remotely connected with the subject matter is a necessary party.
In the circumstance the Applicants are obliged to demonstrate that they have an interest in the subject matter in dispute to make them a necessary party to the Suit.
Per the submission of Counsel for the Applicants, it was the said Nii Okpelor Ablorh
who granted the subject land to the 1st Defendant.
This clearly depicts that whatever interest the said grantor had in the land has been transferred to the 1st Defendant.
The law is that the best person to defend the interest of a grantee is the grantor.
See Hayfron v Egyir [1985] DLCA 922.
This therefore means the 1st Defendant is at liberty to call his grantor as a witness in support of his title and not as a party.
In the circumstance I hereby dismiss the Application.
(SGD)
EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY (J)