GEORGE SACKEY vs THE DIRECTOR GHANA PORTS AND HARBOURS AUTHORITY
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ANTHONY K. YEBOAH (JUDGE)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute over demurrage charges demanded by the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA) from George Sackey, who had three imported vehicles detained by the Customs Division and Ghana Police. The High Court, considering the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure complete resolution of the dispute, decided to join the Attorney-General as a 2nd Respondent to represent the Ghana Police and Customs Division. The court ordered the Applicant to serve all relevant documents on the Attorney-General, Inspector-General of Police, and Commissioner of Customs Division. The decision emphasizes the importance of expeditious proceedings and the court's authority to join necessary parties to fully resolve disputes. The case touches on principles of civil procedure and administrative law, particularly regarding the joinder of parties and the representation of government agencies in legal proceedings.
By the order of the High Court (Human Rights Division 1), Accrapresided over by His Lordship (Sir) Justice Dennis Agyei, J. A. , threeimported vehicles belonging to the Applicant, George Sackey were to be released to the Applicant by the Customs Division of the Ghana Revenue Authority subject to the payment of all duties and taxes.
The attempt by the Applicant to have the Commissioner of the Customs Division comply with this order of the Court has provoked thepresent dispute.
The Applicant contends that the amount of demurragebeing demanded by the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (theRespondent herein) is not entirely legally justifiable, but the Respondent disagrees.
Accordingly, the Applicant has sued the Ghana Ports andHarbours Authority as the Respondent in this Court for “an order directedat the Respondents [sic] to waive that part of the Demurrage that has beenassessed as due and owed by the Applicant to the Respondent company [sic]due to no fault of his…”In answering this suit, the Respondent contends that there is no legal requirement on the Respondent to waive the demurrage or any part of it asthe Respondent has committed no tortious wrong or contractual breach to warrant such a waiver of demurrage.
It is, accordingly, the view of theRespondent that the Applicant should be made to pay the demurrage demanded and seek indemnity from the Customs Division of the Ghana Revenue Authority and the Ghana Police Service as they are the relevantinstitutions alleged to have caused the delay that gave rise to the demurrage.
By Order 1 (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C. I. 47, “[the] Rules [in C. I. 47] shall be interpreted and applied so as to achievespeedy and effective justice, avoid delays and unnecessary expense, andensure that as far as possible, all matters in dispute between parties may becompletely, effectively and finally determined and multiplicity of proceedings concerning any of such matters avoided. ” And, Order 5 (2) of C. I. 47 provides that“[a]t any stage of proceedings the Court may on such terms as it thinks justeither of its own motion or on application….
b) order any person whoought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the proceedings are effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon to be added as a party. ” Read together, these provisions require a court engaged in adjudicating upon amatter to completely,