JUSTICE ARYEEQUAYE ARYEETEY & ANOTHER v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & OTHERS
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- KORBIEH, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- AYEBI, J.A.
- SOWAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Family law
- Property law
- Civil procedure
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court's ruling that joined the 2nd plaintiff/respondent to the suit, finding that the trial judge did not exercise her discretion judicially and took irrelevant matters into consideration. The appellant is granted leave to amend the title of the suit to reflect his representative capacity.
JUDGMENT
SOWAH, J.A.:
This is an interlocutory appeal by the 1st plaintiff/appellant against the Ruling of the High Court, Land Division Accra in which an Order was made for Sampson Odenkey Abbey, the 2nd plaintiff/respondent herein to be joined as the 2nd plaintiff in the pending Suit.
The Ruling is dated 16th December 2015 and is at pages 81-82 of the record of appeal. This appellate court is being prayed to set aside the said Ruling. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
Grounds Of Appeal:
i. The trial Judge erred in law when she granted the application joining the Applicant as 2nd plaintiff on a purely speculative ground of fear of being sidelined by the substantive head of family.
ii. The ruling dated 16th December, 2015 is against the weight of the evidence.
The argument of counsel for the 2nd plaintiff when his application for joinder was being moved at the trial court was that both the 1st plaintiff and the applicant were members of the same Okaifio family of Adjen Kotoku and Accra. That in a suit No. MISC 1098/96 [see pages 49-71 of the Record] that had been pending against the family, both of them had been substituted for their Acting head of family Madam Okomfo Dedei Annan when she had died during the pendency of that Suit, and they had successfully defended the action.
The above fact was used to counter the 1st plaintiff’s contention that he was the only person entitled to represent the family as he was the present head of family. It was argued for the 2nd plaintiff that if he was not joined to the present suit instituted by the 1st plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff ‘may in the end claim that having fought alone he will be the rightful person to deal with the land in future’
The appellants' counsel argued both grounds of appeal together. Relying on Montero vs. Redco [1884-86] 1 GLR 710, it was contended that the 2nd plaintiff/respondents' affidavit in support of the application for joinder had failed to show that his presence was necessary to help the court in adjudicating the matter. Rather, paragraph 10 of his affidavit in support of the motion for joinder [at pages 47 and 48 of the Record] unambiguously showed that he merely wanted to be joined to the action because he was afraid of what would happen if the 1st plaintiff alone represented the family. However, such a reason was not within the parameters of Order 4 rule 3(2).
The appellant explains that because it was mandatory for their head of family who had died during the penden