Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
July 27, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
This is a ruling on a preliminary legal objection raised by Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) to a motion on notice to set aside a writ of summons. The application was filed on 16th June 2023 by the 1st Defendant/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”).
On 12th July 2023 when Counsel for the Applicant was poised to move the application, Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary legal objection seeking to have the application dismissed in limine. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that, the substantive suit pending before this Court is titled:
JARMAINE OPONG-ONYINA
NO. 4 OAK STREET, DOME PILLAR 2, ACCRA
VRS
1. AMINA AL-HASSAN BRAIMAH
ACCRA
2. THE REGISTRAR
CIRCUIT COURT, ACCRA
The learned Counsel further submits that there are only two (2) Defendants to the suit and as captured in the title of the suit, they are Amina-Alhassan Braimah and the Registrar of the Circuit Court.
However, the instant application is titled:
“JARMAINE OPONG-ONYINA
VS.
1. AMINA AL-HASSAN BRAIMAH 1st Defendants
2. BALCHISU AL-HASSAN BRAIMAH
2. THE REGISTRAR 2nd Defendant”
The learned Counsel for the Respondent therefore contends that the substantive suit does not have parties as presented on the face of the motion paper and that the instant application is for an unrelated suit. Counsel maintains that BALCHISU AL-HASSAN BRAIMAH is not a party to the substantive suit; and that, the introduction of the said BALCHISU AL-HASSAN BRAIMAH as a party makes the motion not related to the suit.
Counsel urges on the court that suits are identified by the parties to the suit; and that a mismatch between a Suit Number and the Title of the Suit makes it worse because, it clearly lends credence to the fact that, the application is alien to the suit. It is argued that, there is no suit before the Court where the Suit Number in question is linked to the three (3) parties. In that regard, Counsel contends that the application is incompetent.
The learned Counsel referred to AGYEKUM & AL-HASSAN v. AMADU BABA & ANOR [2003-2004] SCGLR 68 and BUCKMAN & ORS v. ANKOMAYI & ANOR [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1379 and strongly contended that the position of procedural law is that, a person cannot be made a party to a suit unless with leave of Court. Therefore, naming a person as a party on any Court process when in fact, and indeed, that person is not a party to the suit from the outset or pursuant to leave of Court is a fund
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court, Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni ruled on a preliminary objection raised by Jarmaine Opong‑Onyina’s counsel to a motion by Amina Al‑Hassan Braimah seeking to set aside a writ of summons. The Respondent argued the motion was incompetent because its caption added Balchisu Al‑Hassan Braimah, who is not a party to the substantive suit against Amina and the Registrar of the Circuit Court, Accra, and therefore mismatched the suit number and parties. The Applicant countered that the Plaintiff’s reliefs revolve around Circuit Court Suit No. CBL/87/2002, where Amina and Balchisu are joint plaintiffs, and that the correct name and capacity should be disclosed. Emphasizing that suit numbers are unique identifiers and decrying sterile technicalities, the court applied Order 81 and Order 1 Rule 1(2) of C.I. 47 and, relying on established Supreme Court authority and the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat, dismissed the preliminary objection, adjourned the application for hearing, and made no order as to costs.