THEOPHILUS MENSAH vs AKWRABOYE DOKU FAMILY
November 4, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE AMOS WUNTAH WUNI
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
November 4, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court, Sabina Dugan sought to be joined as a defendant in a land ownership dispute, asserting that she owns and possesses part of the land claimed by the plaintiff. She said she acquired her parcel in 2003 and enjoyed peaceful possession until a 2014 trespass, already being litigated in Land Court 5. Relying on Order 4 Rule 5 of C.I.47, she argued that her presence was necessary for complete adjudication. The defendant opposed, characterizing the motion as forum-shopping, citing two suits it had filed against Dugan in Adenta High Court 2, and arguing her interest was adverse and not coterminous with its case. The court noted a problematic affidavit paragraph about a “Trust” and found the Supreme Court case cited by the applicant irrelevant to joinder. Concluding the application lacked merit, the court refused joinder and awarded GHS 2,000 costs against Dugan.
This is a Motion on Notice praying for an Order to join SABINA DUGAN (the Applicant herein) as a Defendant. Counsel for the Applicant moved the application in terms of the motion paper, the affidavit in support and the Exhibits attached.
It is the Applicant’s case that she is the owner in possession of portions of the land in dispute claimed by the Plaintiff in this action. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant acquired a piece or parcel of the disputed land in 2003 and enjoyed peaceful possession of same without any hindrance until the Plaintiff trespassed somewhere in 2014 which matter is presently before my sister in Land Court 5.
Counsel for the Applicant also submits that since Applicant has an interest in the disputed land, per order 4 rule 5 of C.I.47, this Court has power to join her for all matters in dispute to be effectually and completely adjudicated upon. The learned Counsel contends that the Supreme Court has confirmed the rules of court relative to applications for Joinder in many cases including SOON BOON SEO v. GATEWAY WORSHIP CENTER [2008-2009] 1 GLR 21. Although I agree that that the Supreme Court has made pronouncements, ex cathedra, on the rules of court on innumerable occasions, SOON BOON SEO v. GATEWAY WORSHIP CENTER has no bearing on the rules of court relative to applications for Joinder.
The Defendant, who is opposed to the instant application, filed an affidavit in opposition. The gravamen of the affidavit in opposition is that, the Applicant is “forum-shopping” and should not be allowed to continue doing so. It is contended that, from the titles of the two (2) Exhibits attached to the affidavit in opposition, two (2) suits were commenced by the Defendant against the Applicant in the Adenta High Court 2. The Applicant however argues that since she has an interest in the land, she cannot stand aloof and unperturbed while the Defendant and Plaintiff litigate over her land only to suffer grave consequences after judgment is delivered one way or the other. The Applicant therefore contends that she is a necessary party and prays to be joined to defend her interest in the land in dispute.
The Defendant is vehemently opposed to the application on the grounds that the Applicant is neither the grantor nor a grantee of the Defendant. Counsel for the Defendant submits that, on the Applicant’s own showing, she has an adverse claim to the Defendant’s Defence and that, there is nothing the Applicant will add to the Defenda