STRATEGIC ENERGIES LIMITED VS BAZ REVOLUTION TRLOGISTICS LIMITED, ACCRA & WISE AIDOO APASU & ISAAC KAKU BUAH

Parties Plaintiff is represented by Daniel Gbladodzi (Chief Executive Officer) – absent Defendants are represented by Fosu Frimpong (Operations Manager) - absent Representation Robert B. Quartey for the Plaintiff – present Akua Mirekua Nimako-Boateng with her Iris Awunny and Jeffery Kyere for the Defendants– present RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF MISJOINDER The Instant Application to non-suit the 2nd and 3rd Defendant Wise Aidoo Apasi and Isaac Kaku Buah was filed on the 17/10/2022. The Applicants prayed the Court to be non –suited on the basis that the contract for the supply of the petroleum products between the Defendant was as all material times between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant, a legal entity with capacity to sue and be sued.

That acts undertaken by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as directors were done for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant Company Baz Revolution Transport.

On the 27/10/2022 the Plaintiff/Respondent filed its Affidavit in Opposition and averredd that the 2nd & 3rd Defendants are the alter ego of the 1st Defendant and it was the 2nd Defendant who wrote to the Plaintiff’s lawyer requesting for the supply of fuel on credit basis.

That the 2nd & 3rd Defendants remain the directing minds of the 1st Defendant orders such should not be misjoined.

Order 4 rule 5 (2) of C. 1 47 states as follows: -At any stage of proceedings the Court may on suchterms as it thinks just either of its own motion or onapplication(a) order any person who has been improperly orunnecessarily made a party or who for any reason is nolonger a party or a necessary party to cease to be aparty; On the 28/211/2022, the Application was moved.

The Court upon noting the Plaintiff’s counsels vehement opposition on the basis that the 1st Defendant is not in good standing with its compliance obligators at the RGD, and taking into consideration the substantive sums being claimed by the Plaintiff being GH҃¢1, 604, 6110 was of the opinion that it is critical the Plaintiff knows the Defendants registered address and is able to serve the 1st Defendant with all the requisite processes emanating from the suit.

The Court thus requested the Defendants to furnish the Court with a Compliance Report from the Companies Registry.

Applicant Counsel indicated the 1st Defendant was a company in good standing and could be located for service.

On 27/10/2022, the Applicants filed its company regulators for the attention of the Court.

This document does not include the regist