TABITA TREBI & others v. FRANK TREBI & others

[1] Introduction & Brief Background

The Plaintiff/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) filed a motion on 17th

January 2024 for an order joining the Lands Commission to the instant action as 3rd Defendant. The gravamen of the Plaintiffs’ application can be found in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit in support. The Applicant contends that the Lands Commission are necessary party for the resolution of the issues for determination.

I have not sighted an affidavit in opposition filed by the Defendants/Respondents. Counsel for the Defendants/Respondents informed the Court that they are not opposed to the present application.

[2] Court’s analysis and opinion

I now proceed to review and consider the arguments of Counsel in relation to the merits or otherwise of the instant application.

Order 4 Rule 5 (2) (b) of C.I 47 provides as follows:

“(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 party who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all the matters in dispute in the proceeding are effectively

and completely determined and adjudicated upon to be added as a party.

It is fundamental in litigation that parties must commence action against relevant parties to the suit. Any person whose presence before the court is necessary or to ensure that the dispute is effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon is added as a party. The main reason for joinder of cause of action is to avoid multiplicity of suits, and reduction of costs and time for trials1.

In the case of Bonsu and Another vs Bonsu [1971] 2 GLR 242 at 267, Taylor J as he then was held as follows on the issue of who is a necessary party:

“The power of joinder must be in respect of parties who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the cause or matters.

To grant an order for joinder is discretionary but the exercise of such discretions is governed by the principle that the court has jurisdiction only to grant joinder to achieve the purpose specified Order 16 r. 11, namely, that the court has jurisdiction to join a person whose presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose and has no jurisdiction under the rule to join a person whose presence is not necessary