ROSEHAVEN HOMES GHANA LTD vs ROSE ARYEE & ORS

By a motion on notice for joinder filed on 30th November, 2022, Counsel for ERIC JUSTICE KUSI-APPAU and GRACE BADU APPAU (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicants”) supplicates this Honourable Court for the Applicants (who are husband and wife) to be joined to the instant suit as Defendants. The learned Counsel moved the application in terms of the motion paper and the accompanying affidavit.

The rules of court relative to applications for Joinder are explicitly set out in Order 4 Rule 5(2)(b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) as follows:

“5. (2) At any stage of proceedings the Court may on such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or on application

(b) order any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the proceedings are effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon to be added as a party.”

Therefore, the Court has power, after a suit has been filed, to join any person who ought to have sued or to have been sued in the first instance or to join any person whose presence is necessary or required to ensure that the entire dispute is “effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon”.

Consequently, with applications for Joinder, if and only if, a person’s presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that a dispute is effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon, that person may be added as a party. This position of the law is supported by legal authorities. See: Coleman v Shang [1959] GLR 159; Ussher v Darko [1977] 1 GLR 476 C/A and Howden v Yorkshire Miners’ Association [1903] 1 KB 308.

In stating the raison d’etré for the instant application, the learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that, the pendency of this suit has come to their notice; and that, prior to the commencement of the suit, they had instituted an action before the High Court (Human Rights Division) in Suit No. LD/0366/2018 against the 2nd Defendant in this matter and Osamanpa Estate Developers Limited. It is contended that since the two actions relate to the same land, similar questions of law and facts are at stake for the determination of the matter before this Court and in Suit No. LD/0366/2018.

Counsel for the Applicants argues that the joinder is necessary because any decision (or judgment) in relation to the matter will affect the Applicants’ interest and contends that the joinder will ensure th