Try asking the following...
RULING
On the 19th day of June, 2023, one Opanyin Hayford Kwadwo Apeadu brought the instant Application seeking an order joining him as a Defendant to this Suit in his capacity as the head of family of the Aduana family of Adamrobe.
The nucleus of the Application is that the subject land in dispute belongs to his family.
And that his family acquired same via discovery by their progenitor Safrotwe Kakradae in the 1820(s).
The Affidavit in Support further states that the Applicant’s family has been in an undisturbed possession of their land and granted portions to individuals, institutions and organisations without any challenge from any one.
The Applicants exhibited site plans covering the extent of their land.
See Exhibit OHKA series.
And that the Applicant’s family in 1949 granted part of the subject land to one of its grantees, the Adjei Klu family of Teshie.
The Applicant further states that the same was a subject matter of litigation before the High Court, with Suit No. FAL 255/12, whereupon the parties agreed to terms of settlement which was eventually adopted by the Court as Consent Judgment.
See Exhibit OHKA 2, a copy of the Terms of Settlement.
According to the Applicant his family has not granted any land to the Plaintiffs.
He stated further that his family granted the land in dispute to the 2nd Defendant and further permitted the 2nd Defendant’s family to stay and farm on parcels of land belonging to them.
Hence the instant Application.
In contesting the Application Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Respondents argues that a perusal of the Application does not show in any ways whatsoever how the grant of the Application will lead to the final and effective determination of the issues before the Court.
And that all the Exhibits attached to the Application did not establish that the Applicant has any interest in the subject land.
Counsel submits further that the parties do not trace their title to the Applicant’s family.
And that granting the Application at this stage will embarrass and delay the trial.
There is further evidence before me depicting that the 1st Plaintiff, the grantor of the 2nd Plaintiff has brought an action against the Applicant and the Lands Commission in respect of the same land for which same is before the High Court, Adenta.
See Exhibit LA1.
It is trite law that in order to check against multiplicity of suits, anyone whose presence before the Court is necessary or to ensure that the dispute is effectively and completely d