INDEPTH NETWORK v. DANIEL KOFI BAKU & 9 OTHERS
February 4, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
February 4, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This motion concerned whether Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, the 5th defendant to a counterclaim, was a necessary party. Indepth Network had sued multiple defendants; the 1st–7th defendants counterclaimed, alleging that a resolution on a forged letterhead removed a signatory from the plaintiff’s bank accounts and that Awuah wrote to banks asserting certain directors. Awuah, a lawyer with Sarkodie Baffour Awuah & Partners, which serves as company secretary to Indepth Network, sought to be struck out, arguing that any acts he performed were professional acts of his firm and that he was improperly joined. Applying Order 4 r. 5(2) of C.I. 47 and canvassing Ghanaian and English authorities on joinder, the Court held that Awuah had no personal interest or obligation in the dispute and his presence would not assist complete adjudication; acts done for the plaintiff could be invalidated without joining him. The application was granted, with no order as to costs.
MOTION FOR MISJOINDER
i. Introduction:
[1] The facts of this case are free from complexity. The Plaintiff Indepth Network issued out a Writ of Summons sealed at the registry of this Court against the Defendants herein for certain judicial reliefs. Mr. Justin Amenuvor entered appearance for the 1st to 7th Defendants and filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim against certain Defendants including the 5th Defendant, Mr. Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah who is the Solicitor who issued the writ of summons for the Plaintiffs.
[2] The 5th Defendant/Applicant to the Counterclaim has brought the instant application for an order to strike him out as a party to the action on the grounds that he is not a necessary party pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and/or Order 4(5) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). The Applicant prays the Court to strike him out as a party to the suit on the grounds that the suit (i) discloses no reasonable cause of action against him (ii) it is vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process and (iii) misjoinder. In a nutshell, the 5th Defendant to the Counterclaim prayer is to be non-suited.
ii. The Case For and Against the Application.
[3] I note that due to scheduling challenges of the Court it became impossible for the Court to hear viva voce arguments of Counsel after the application was filed and the Respondents also filed an affidavit in opposition. The Court ordered both parties to file their legal arguments by way of legal submissions. Both Counsel have complied with the order.
[4] Counsel for the Applicant in his legal submission filed on January 11, 2019 referred to the 10 paragraph supporting affidavit of Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah filed on July 24, 2018 and submitted by referring to paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support that the basis of the Respondent’s action against his client are captured in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. The said paragraphs state as follows:
“21. In the further denial, the 1st to 7th defendants say that Marcel Tanner and Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah signed a resolution on the 31st day of March 2018 on a forged letter head of the Plaintiff to remove the 2nd Defendant as a signatory to the accounts of the Plaintiff at a time when the 2nd Defendant was still the Executive Director of the Plaintiff. The resolution was served on the 8th and 9th Defendants.
22. In further denial the 1st to 7th Defendants say that Fred Newton Binka a