Try asking the following...
RULING
Suing as the children and beneficiaries of the Estate of Colonel Ebenezer Tetteh Oklah (Rtd), the Plaintiffs/Applicants (hereafter referred to as the Applicants) commenced the instant action against the Defendants/Respondents (hereafter referred to as the Respondents) with the issuance of a Writ of Summons on 24th March, 2020 for stated reliefs.
On 21st November 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an application for an Order of Joinder seeking to join the following as 4th, 5th, and 6th Defendants respectively:
1. APEX SQUARE LIMITED
No. 7, Dzorwulu Motorway Extension,
Apex Square Building, Accra.
2. KWAME TAYLOR
Adjiriganor, Accra.
3. JOSELYN DUMAS
Nii Odai Footse Street,
Adjiriganor, Accra.
The raison d’etre for the application for Joinder is clearly adumbrated in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the affidavit in support deposed to and filed on 21st November 2022 by the 2nd Plaintiff/Applicant, Euphemia Terkwor Oklah (with the authority and consent of the 1st and 3rd Plaintiffs) of No. 3, Wougon Close, East Cantonments, Accra as below –
“15. That the names and address contained in the Motion Paper are the persons 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents let the land to.
16. That I am advised by Counsel and I verily believe same to be true that the said persons are necessary parties to this suit.
17. That I am further advised by Counsel and I verily believe same to be true that joining the said persons as parties to the suit will ensure that all matters in controversy between the parties will be effectually determined once and for all.
18. I am further advised by Counsel and I verily believe same to be true that joining the said persons as parties to the suit will avoid multiplicity of Suits.”
The 1st and 2nd Respondents vehemently oppose the application by an affidavit deposed to and filed on 8th December, 2022 by Josephine Amoasi (of House No WAB 127/1, Ataa Amarh Street, Ashalley Botwe, Accra) a Clerk of ECAM LAW CONSULT, the firm of Lawyers retained by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
In moving the instant application, Counsel for the Applicants attacked the propriety of the affidavit in opposition as it was not deposed to by any officer of the 1st Defendant Company or by the 2nd Defendant who is the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant Company. The learned Counsel contends that, the matters in issue could only be properly deposed to by an officer of the 1st Respondent or the 2nd Respondent himself who is a party.
However, notwithstanding the questionable