PHILIP KOJO ATTAKPAH VS AMOH EKOW DANIELS & 2 ORS
June 26, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
June 26, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
On the 7th day of February, 2023 the 1st Defendant/Applicant filed the instant Application praying the Court for an order joining one Dr. William Sam and Alhaji Mohammed Agbeve to this suit as the 4th and 5th Defendants.
The Application was resisted by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
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 determined and adjudicated upon must be added to the suit.
See Bonsu v Bonsu [1971] 2 GLR 242 and Enimil IV Ashanti [2012] 39 MLRG 48.
I take this to mean that the proper person to bring or defend an action must be someone who has an interest in the subject matter in dispute to make such a person a necessary party to such an action.
This therefore means that it is not anybody who is remotely connected with the subject matter is a necessary party.
A look at the Search Report, Exhibit A which forms the nucleus of the Application does not show that the Applicant trace his root of title to the subject land to the persons he is seeking to join to the Suits.
There is further evidence before me that the Applicant does not even know the residence or address of the persons he is seeking to join.
In the circumstance I accordingly dismiss the Application.
(SGD)
EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY (J)
AI Generated Summary
On February 7, 2023, the 1st Defendant/Applicant in a land dispute applied to join Dr. William Sam and Alhaji Mohammed Agbeve as additional defendants. The Plaintiff/Respondent opposed the motion. HIS LORDSHIP Emmanuel Amo Yartey (J) outlined the settled law on joinder: to prevent multiplicity of suits, only persons whose presence is necessary to effectively and completely determine the dispute should be added. Citing Bonsu v Bonsu [1971] 2 GLR 242 and Enimil IV Ashanti [2012] 39 MLRG 48, the court found that the proposed joiners lacked a demonstrable interest in the subject land. Exhibit A, the Search Report, did not trace the Applicant’s root of title to either person, and the Applicant did not know their addresses. Concluding that their connection was remote and speculative, the court dismissed the application for joinder.