MR. ATIKPO GODFRED (HEAD OF MADABAJAI FAMILY, SUING FOR AN ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY vs MS. ADJEI DORA & 5 ORS
July 10, 2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JOAN EYI KING
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
July 10, 2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court, Hohoe, the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th defendants applied to be struck out of a land dispute on the basis of misjoinder. The 2nd defendant denied any interest in the land, while the 3rd and 6th defendants explained their limited involvement as labourers hired by the 1st defendant to tap palm wine, with no proprietary claim. The plaintiff contended the applicants entered and trespassed on the respondent’s family land and highlighted statements of defence implying admission of entry. Applying Order 4 rule 5 of CI 47 and Supreme Court authorities distinguishing proper and necessary parties, the court found the applicants had no interest in the subject matter, their presence would not assist effective adjudication, and they were wrongly joined. The court granted the application, struck out their names, and awarded each applicant GHS 1,000 in costs.
This is an application for and on behalf of the 2 nd, 3rd and 6th defendants/applicants hereinafter referred to as applicants praying for an order to misjoin them from the suit.
I shall quote the relevant paragraphs of the 2 nd defendant as follows: 3. That the plaintiff instituted this action in this Honourable Court and in electing his defendants elected me as the 2 nd defendant to the suit.
4. That the land, the subject matter of this action is a land I have no interest in whatsoever.
5. That the 2 nd defendant has no property, agents or interest thereon to warrant being summoned.
nd 6. That this action is unfairly putting an aggravating financial pressure on the 2 defendant to grapple with.
7. That the 2 nd defendant wants to state in categorical terms that he has no interest in the land in question and no action of his is close to the land in any way whatsoever.
8. That the 5 th defendant in his paragraph 9 of statement of defendant admits he and the 1 st defendant are the legitimate owner of the disputed land and never mentioned the 2 nd defendant.
9. That the 2 nd defendant stated this in his own statement of defence paragraph 3 that“he does not have hands in cultivating or farming on the said land. ”10. That the outcome of this suit would have no bearing on the 2 nd defendant in anyway.
11. That electing and selecting the 2 nd defendant to this suit was wrongly one and the plaintiff did not do any proper checks before taking this action.
12. That the 2 nd defendant wants to pray the Honourable Court to strike him out of the suit since he has no interest in the land and keeping him as a party to the suit will be a waste of his time, the court’s time and everybody’s time with heavy cost against the plaintiff for me for inconvenience.
I shall quote the relevant paragraphs of the 3 rd and 6th defendants/applicants application as follows: 3. That we were summoned before the High Court, Hohoe by the plaintiff to litigate over the said land which we knew nothing about and cannot neither narrate the lineages nor founders of the said land.
4. That the 3 rd and 6th defendants were asked by the 1st defendant to tap palm wine for her at the said land which the plaintiff wrongly suit us jointly and severally by the plaintiff.
After the services were rendered to the 1 st defendant successfully, she paid us as labourers and that ends it because we do not own any land around or close to the disputed area.
5. That the plaintiff upon seeing us