Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
June 14, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
It is provided under Order 31 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2014, C. I 47 that: Consolidation of proceedings“2. Where two or more causes or matters are pending in the same Court and it appears to the Court(a) That some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them; or(b) That the rights to relief claimed are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or(c) That for some other reason it is desirable to make an order under this rule, the Court may order those causes or matters to be consolidated on such terms as it considers just, or may order them to be tried at the same time or one immediately after another, or may order any of them to be stayed until the determination of any other of them.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs moved this Court for an order of consolidation of the instant suit, with suit No. CM/RPC/017/2018. The basis for seeking this order can be found in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the affidavit in support as follows: 4. That the 1st Defendant on 5th March, 2018 caused his solicitor to issue out a writ form the registry of this Hon.
Court claiming the reliefs endorsed on the writ against the 1st Plaintiff in Suit No. CM/RPC/017/2018 titled Junchen Enterprise Limited Vrs. Ama Fosuaa pending before Commercial Court 2. 5. That subsequent to the issuance of the Writ Counsel for Defendants in instant suit who is also Counsel for Plaintiffs in suit No. CM/RPC/017/2018 caused service upon the 1st Plaintiff herein who is Defendant therein by substitution and obtained the Order in Commercial Court 2. (Exhibit SP1)6. That I was not aware of the commencement of legal action against the 1st Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant Company herein in Commercial Court 2 even as I received instructions to issue the writ against the Plaintiff Company and its Chinese employees from the registry of this Hon.
Court which case is pending before this Court.
7. That I am advised and verily believe same to be true that the issues, parties and subject matter in both suits are the same and pray this Court for an order of consolidation of both suits.
Counsel for the Defendants/Respondents (Respondents) opposed the application, with reasons contained in a 28-paragraphed affidavit filed on 31st May 2019. In paragraph 1 of the said affidavit in opposition, the defendants conceded that the 1st Defendant filed a suit on 5th March 2018, titled Junchen Enterprise Limited Vrs Ama Fosuaa, but it is for a liquidated claim of GH
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court, Her Ladyship Justice Mrs. Angelina Mensah-Homiah considered a motion by Plaintiffs to consolidate their suit (CM/BDC/0339/2018) with Junchen Enterprise Limited v. Ama Fosuaa (CM/RPC/017/2018). The former seeks GHȼ2,268,000 for loss of commission on 35 containers of shoes, general damages, assault and battery, declarations against unlawful retail trading, and injunctions against identified defendants. The latter is a debt recovery action for GHȼ283,826 with interest, damages, and costs. The record shows significant interlocutory steps in the debt suit, including a preservation order over footwear, a court-ordered GHȼ3,000,000 security deposit, and subsequent appeals and cross-appeals. Applying Order 31 Rule 2, the court found only Junchen Enterprise Limited and Ama Fosuaa common between suits, with multiple claims in the present case against the 2nd–6th Defendants personally. Because consolidation would cause undue delay and prejudice, and the trial court lacks control over pending appeals, the court refused consolidation and made no order as to cost.