Try asking the following...
RULING
This application has been filed on 05/03/2019, by the applicant by name NENE NARTEH OTUTOTO AKAKPOSU V, who has described himself as head of the royal Teteman family of Kasunya.
Applicant is seeking an order to join him as a 3rd Defendant to this action.
There is an affidavit in support made by him, with Exhibit ‘A’ and ‘B’, ‘B1’, and ‘B2’, as well as Exhibit ‘C’ annexed.
The application has been opposed by the two Defendants in the action.
The affidavit in opposition made by Counsel for 1st Defendant contains the rebuttals offered by him.
It is dated 19/03/2019. There are exhibits annexed namely: EXHIBIT ‘NDA1’, ‘NDA2’, ‘NDA3’, NDA3‘A’ ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and EXHIBIT ‘NDA4’. And the affidavit in opposition made by 2nd Defendant, and filed on 03/04/2019, contains the opposition of the 2nd Defendant to this motion.
The general policy of the law with regard to litigation is, “INTEREST REI PUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM”, and this is an important test to apply with other principles in the determination of joinder applications.
But firstly, where two parties are in a dispute before a court of competent jurisdiction: (i) and determination will directly or indirectly affect a third party in his pocket or right or will be called to make a contribution either in kind or cash, then his presence will ensure effectual determination of issues in dispute.
In the case: SAM VS ATTORNEY GENERAL NO. 2 [2000] SCGLR, Ampiah J. S. C. stated that important factor in joinder application is that, the court must look at the indorsement of the Reliefs on the writ of summons thus excluding the party whose presence may NOT be necessary for the adjudication of the issues arising from the pleadings, may be an important consideration for the court.
In the case: TSATSU TSIKATA VS THE REPUBLIC [2007/2008]SCGLR 702 & 714, Atuguba J. S. C. wrote on joinder: “From the foregoing, it is clear that the law has reached the stage where statute apart, a court has the inherent jurisdiction to join a person to proceedings before it in which such person is Interested as a Party or without such joinder order the proceedings to be served on him to enable him to be heard on the matter, as such interested party or to be served on a person as an Amicus curiae.
Whether such a person be interested in the subject matter or not and provided his presence can assist the court to resolve the issue at hand.
Such a person can be invited by the court to be heard on the matter, the common test in all th