MESHACK AYITTAH & 5 ORS. v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & 2 ORS.

This Ruling is in respect of Motion on Notice to set aside the Writ of Summons and

Statement of Claim served on the 2nd Defendant and to strike out the 3rd Defendant

as a party.

This was supported by an Affidavit stating among others this Court’s jurisdiction

has been wrongly invoked by the Plaintiff/Respondent against 2nd

Defendant/Applicant in that Plaintiff/Respondent has failed to or comply with the

statutory obligation and condition precedent before issuing the Writ and Statement

of Claim which implies that the Writ and Statement of Claim issued at the Registry

of this Court at the behest of Plaintiff/Respondent against the 2nd

Defendant/Applicant is in breach of the Local Governance Act 2016 (Act 936) hence

the issuance of the service of the Writ and Statement of Claim on 2nd

Defendant/Applicant is void.

They further aver that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant is not a proper person to sue

since he is acting position and the Chieftaincy Act 2008 (Act 759) describes the

proper person to sue in an action against a body such as the Ningo Traditional

Council.

For this reason, the 3rd Defendant/Applicant ought to be struck out as a party to this

suit.

In opposing this Application, Plaintiffs/Respondents aver that the action brought

against the Office of the Acting President is proper and in conformity with the

Chieftaincy Act 2008 (Act 759).

They also aver that the 3rd Defendant’s presence is necessary for all matters in

dispute.

Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’/Respondents’ Affidavit in Opposition states:

That the Plaintiffs in their Statement of Claim pleaded facts directed at the

Ningo Traditional Council and which shows the cause of action against the

Council and which will form the basis for joining the Council to this suit,

should the Court come to the conclusion that it is the Ningo Traditional

Council which should be a proper party and not the Acting President of the

Ningo Traditional Council.

After reading the Motion with its Supporting Affidavit as well as the Affidavit in

Opposition and after hearing the legal argument of respective counsel. I am of the

view that it is procedurally wrong to issue the writ of summons against the 2nd

Defendant- Ningo Prampram District Assembly without recourse to the provision of

the Local Governance Act. Also the 3rd Defendant is also not properly joined in this

suit. In that, per the title of the suit he is the Acting President of the District

Assembly which means he is not the substant