KONEX ASSOCIATES LTD. & ANOR vs OKECHUKWU JOHN OMEOKWE & ANOR

1. On 8th October, 2018, Defendants/Applicants filed a motion on notice, pursuant to ORDER 1 RULE 4, ORDER 4 RULE 5(2)(a) of the High Court, [Civil Procedure] Rule 2004, C. I. 47, and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

The reliefs sought in the motion paper have been stated as follows: “An order striking out the writ of summons on grounds that thePlaintiffs/Respondents have NO LEGAL CAPACITY ORLOCUS STANDI, to institute this suit against theDefendants/Applicants. ”The deposition in support, has been made by one Elijah OppongAmponsah, a law clerk.

There are six exhibits annexed to the motion, there is a supplementary affidavit in support.

Order 1 Rule 4 Provides: ACTING WITHOUT AUTHORITY“A person who without authority knowingly acts or takes anyproceedings in the Court in the name of or on behalf of anotherperson shall be liable to committal for contempt of Court. ”Order 4 Rule 5(2)(a), also provides: “any stage of proceedings the Court may on such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or on application.

a) Order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who for any reason is no longer a party or a necessary party to cease to be a party. ”The inherent jurisdiction of this Court has also been invoked.

Inherent jurisdiction of a court is described as that common law doctrine[accepted by Ghana Common Law], which empowers a Superior Court toexercise its jurisdiction to hear any matter that comes before it unless a statute or rule limits that authority or grants exclusive jurisdiction to someother court or tribunal.

The averments in the affidavit in support are to the effect that, the 1stPlaintiff/Respondent (KONEX ASSOCIATES LTD. ) is a limited liabilitycompany and 2nd Plaintiff is wife of OTISI NOUKWE KALU (hereinafterreferred to as the, deceased) who was the majority shareholder of 1st Plaintiffand 2nd Defendant/Applicant companies, holding 80% shares.

And 1stDefendant/Applicant is the minority shareholder in the two companiesaforementioned, holding 20% shares, in both.

Exhibit ‘EOA1’, a Certificate of Incorporation of KONEX ASSOCIATESLTD. under the Companies Act.

1963, [ACT.

179] has been cited in supportof the averments.

Secondly, the deposition showed that 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinreferred to as 2nd Respondent), is one of the Directors of the two companies, and is the wife of the deceased, but has not furnished Letters ofAdministration in respect of the estate of the deceased husband.

And