LT. CDR. PERRY TETTEH & OTHERS v. ECKANKAR GHANA SATSANG SOCIETY
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU, JA (PRESIDING)
- MARFUL-SAU, JA
- SAEED-GYAN, JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the appellants had the capacity to initiate the action. The trial High Court had dismissed the action on the grounds that the appellants, who claimed to be Executives of Eckankar Ghana Accra West, did not have the capacity as the entity no longer existed. The appellants argued they had initiated the action in their individual capacities and on behalf of the members. However, the court held that the appellants did not have the capacity to sue, affirming the High Court's dismissal of the suit. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with all concurrences agreeing with the decision.
JUDGMENT
MARFUL-SAU, JA:-The fundamental issue raised in this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff/ appellants (hereinafter called appellants) had the capacity to institute the action leading to this appeal. The trial High Court had on the 24th October 2012 dismissed appellants’ action on grounds that they lacked the requisite capacity to initiate the action. Dissatisfied with the said ruling the appellants filed a notice of appeal on the 30th of October 2012. In the said notice the appellant’s formulated one ground of appeal, namely that the learned High Court Judge erred in law by dismissing the suit for want of capacity.
The appellants issued a writ accompanied with a statement of claim against the defendants/ respondents (hereinafter called respondents) claiming various relie fs. Upon service, the respondents filed a motion praying that the writ be struck out and the suit dismissed. The trial High Court heard the motion on its merits and dismissed the suit. At page 27 of the record of appeal, the trial court ruled thus:-
‘’The plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement of claim is accordingly dismissed as they lack the capacity to bring the action.’’
The appellants by paragraph 1 of their statement of claim averred as follows:-
‘’1. The plaintiffs are Executives of a branch of Eckankar Ghana Accra West, a branch of the central organization known and described as Eckankar Ghana Satsang Society registered under the laws of Ghana and bring this action on behalf of themselves and the entire membership of Eckankar Ghana Accra West.’’
The argument put up by the respondents was that Eckankar Ghana Accra West for which the appellants claimed to be the Executives did not exist as a legal entity or a juristic person, that can sue and be sued and for that matter the appellants were not clothed with capacity to sue. They argued that Eckankar Ghana Accra West had been merged with another branch and therefore did not exist and could not have Executives.
The appellants on the other hand argued that they instituted the action in their individual rights and also on behalf of the members of Eckankar Ghana Accra West. They therefore contended that even if Eckankar Ghana Accra West did not exist they have the right, as individuals to initiate the action against the first respondent, who was the accredited body in charge of Eckankar in Ghana.
Now, before I tackle the fundamental issue raised in the appeal, I need to address a problem I find with appellants’ action