LIVING FAITH WORLD OUTREACH CENTRE & ORS VS THE REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS

TANKO AMADU JSC

(1) This appeal is from the judgment of the High Court, dated 28/7/2017 the record of appeal reveals that the judgment appealed from was delivered in two (2)consolidated suits.

At the Trial Court, the suits are Numbered BMISC 877/2004 and AHR 9/2005 respectively.

Suit Number BMISC 877/2004 is entitled LIVING FAITH WORLD OUTREACH CENTRE & 7 OTHERS VS. GEORGE AGYEMAN & 9 OTHERS while Suit Number AHR 9/2005 is entitled LIVING FAITH OUTREACH CENTRE & 2 OTHERS VS. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL& 14 OTHERS.

The Trial Court delivered one judgment in respect of the two suits.

I shall deal with the issues arising from the consolidation of the two suits subsequently.

At this point, however, it is necessary to put the consolidated appeal into perspective.

1. PARTIES TO THE APPEAL The 1st and 2nd Appellants in the appeals before this Court are two companies.

The two companies referred are known as; LIVING FAITH OUTREACH CENTRE AND WORLD MISSION AGENCY.

They are also the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in the two suits consolidated in the Trial Court.

The other Appellants are a number of individuals.

The individuals who joined these companies as Plaintiffs in the two suits are members of a church established by the 1st Plaintiff/ Appellant.

This church is known as ‘Winners Chapel’. These individuals used to worship with the individual Defendants mentioned in the two suits in the same church called Winners Chapel until they parted ways.

1. At the inception of the suit, all the Defendants including 5th, 8th and 9th Defendants in Suit Number BMISC 877/2004 were represented by Lynnes Quarshie Idun & Co.

Subsequently, however, 5th, 8th and 9th Defendants who initially were not served with the Writ of Summons changed their lawyers and appointed Messrs Otoo Kotey & Associates as their lawyers.

The 5th and 9th Defendants subsequently filed a separate defence to the two suits.

These Defendants have also appealed against the judgment of the Trial Court.

From the record, the 8th Defendant did not participate in the proceedings through he was duly served with all the processes.

Thus at the hearing of the appeal, the two appeals were consolidated for this court to deliver one judgment in respect of the two appeals from one record.

1. The other Defendants are the Respondents to the appeal before the Court.

In terms of the parties, I note from the record that the tenth Defendant in Suit Number BMISC 877/2004 (Life Assembly Church) appears in the second suit as 4th D