SOLENGO CAPITAL ULC & ANOR. VS ISAAC KOJO AMEAH DANSO & 3 ORS.
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a move to non-suit the 3rd Defendant who was not being sought for any relief in the initial suit, which had taken judgments against other parties. However, the plaintiffs argued that allegations of fraud necessitated the inclusion of the 3rd Defendant. After assessing the amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, the court held that the 3rd Defendant remains a necessary party. Consequently, the application to remove the 3rd Defendant was refused and costs were awarded against the 3rd Defendant.
NANA AGYEI
Essentially, it is not in dispute that there is no relief against the 3rd Defendant in this suit. Secondly, there is no dispute about the fact that Judgment has been taken against all other parties with the exception of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant.
The question which should agitate the mind of this Court is that in case of a trial and Judgment rendered what orders will the Court make against the 3rd Defendant? No relief is sought against it. The only complaint they have against the 3rd Defendant is that they have made an oral promise to deliver the subject matter of this suit.
That promise without more, does not give cause to a cause of action. All these facts put before you, we want to submit that very critical to any litigation before any Court, there must be a cause of action. None is present against the 3rd Defendant in this suit.
The authority of Morkor v. Kumah may have been over flogged in this Court and therefore needs no introduction, and also the particulars of the decision. But essentially, it is on all fours with the instant application where the Supreme Court said in a nutshell that where there is no cause of action or relief sought against a Party, he is not a true and necessary Party to the suit and should have been misjoined in reference to that suit.
Doing this will be in accordance with Order 1 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, as it will save the Court and all Parties time, money and further delay this matter. So that they will go after the other parties who they have already obtained Judgment in Default against.
Indeed the sum of his affidavit in opposition is to the effect that this matter has travelled so far and that having gone through the Motions and gotten to this stage, it might be necessary to go through the matter. Order 4 Rule 5 is the answer (Read out in Court). In this instance, it is even more necessary to bring the matter to an end.
ERIC
The gravamen of my affidavit in opposition is that the application is misconceived because my learned friend is just relying on the reliefs being sought and coming to the conclusion that no case is being made against the 3rd Defendant. If you go to the interpretation Section of C.I. 47, a writ is interpreted as a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. If a Party comes to Court to argue that an action has not disclosed any case against him as a Party, it is just no about the reliefs.
You look at the reliefs and the Statement of Claim before you come to that conclusion. If y