JULIANA AYIM DONKOR & OTHERS v. ADE COKER & OTHERS
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- ACQUAYE, J.A.
- WELBOURNE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the High Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, dismissing the defendants' application to strike out the co-plaintiffs for procedural non-compliance. The defendants appealed, challenging the procedural irregularities, particularly the plaintiff's delay in filing an amended writ of summons. The Appeals Court found that the High Court erred in not striking out the co-plaintiffs and all their filed processes for violating procedural rules. The court upheld the appeal, striking out the names of the co-plaintiffs and the amended writ of summons filed without the court's leave, highlighting the mandatory compliance required under the Civil Procedure Rules.
JUDGMENT
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
On 6-12-2007, the High Court, Accra, ruled among other things that;
“….It is the duty of the plaintiff to do the amendment and serve the co-plaintiff with the amended writ of summons. It has however been observed that the plaintiff has done the amendment and filed same on 31-10-07, 10 months after the order. In fact after Counsel for the Defendants has raised the issue.
This Court having taken into consideration the stage to which case has travelled and the fact that the defendants had filed court processes and served same on the Co-plaintiff after the non-compliance had been noticed, I will invoke the provision of Order 1 R 2 in order to achieve speedy and effective justice, avoid delay and necessary expense and ensure that as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may completely, effectively and finally determined and multiplicity of proceeding concerning any such matters avoided………..
This Court is of the view that the claim of the Co- Plaintiff as endorsed on the writ of summons is proper provided it does not lead to any miscarriage of justice.”
Dissatisfied with the decision of the court, the defendants appealed to this court on the following grounds:
[i] The learned Judge erred in law when he held that even though the plaintiff had failed to comply with Order 4 Rule 5 (5) & (7) of the High Court [Civil Procedure] Rules 2004, CI 47, he would nevertheless not strike out the names of the Co-Plaintiffs from the suit.
[ii] The ruling of the learned Judge was given per incuriam having regard to the Supreme Court decisions in Morkor vs. Kuma [East Coast Fisheries case] (1998-99) SCGLR 620 and Sam Jonah vs. Duodo-Kumi [2003-2004] SCGLR 50 which were cited to him
[iii] The learned trial Judge erred in law when he with all due respect to him failed to appreciate the situation in which the Plaintiff’s counsel filed an amended Writ of Summons about almost 2 years after being granted leave to do so and endorsed same with the reliefs of his Client as well as the Co-Plaintiffs who were not his client.
[iv] The learned trial Judge erred in law when he failed to make a definite determination regarding the case of a party who applies to join a suit as Co-Plaintiff but ends up with his own Statement of Claim endorsed with different and separate reliefs from that of the Plaintiff.
[v] Additional grounds of Appeal to be filed upon receipt of the entire record of proceedings.
The reliefs sought f