Ayitey v Pacific Oil Ghana Ltd (E1/HCKO/184/2023) [2024] GHAHC 518 (25 November 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, HELD AT THE HIGH COURT “2”, KASOA-OFAAKOR ON MONDAY THE 25TH NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE EDWARD TWUM J, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT SUIT NO. E1/HCKO/184/2023 ABUSUAPANYIN IBRAHIM AYITEY … PLAINTIFF SUING AS THE HEAD OF THE AYITEY FAMILY OF OFAAKOR H/NO. 13/14 GODA ROAD, OFAAKOR, KASOA VRS. PACIFIC OIL GHANA LTD. … DEFENDANT PACIFIC HOUSE, 103 ECOWAS ROAD DIGITAL ADDRESS: GM-044-1378 MADINA, ACCRA TIME: 9:45 A.M. PARTIES Plaintiff represented by Obrempong Kwasi Oboh Defendant represented by Asiedu Arko Antipas (Operations Officer) LEGAL REPRESENTATION Enoch Aboagye with Joyce Awuah-Sarpong Plaintiff/Applicant - Present Lawrence Ofori-Addo holding the brief of Daniel Arthur Esq. for Defendant/Respondent – Present RULING 1. This is a ruling on a motion on notice to join the Registrar of the High Court, Winneba as a defendant to this suit. 1 2. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they sued the Defendant company for the reliefs endorsed on their writ of summons and statement of claim. 3. The Defendant company subsequently entered appearance and filed a statement of defence. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that in paragraph 3 of the Defendant company’s statement of defence, the Defendant averred that it acquired the disputed land through a judicial sale conducted by the High Court, Winneba in the Suit titled Antonello Petenel vrs. Nana Kojo Arkaah (Suit No. TE1/3/14), an averment which the Plaintiff says it denied in its Reply. 4. Based on the averment of the Defendant that it acquired the disputed land through judicial sale conducted by the High Court, Winneba, it is the contention of the Plaintiff that the Registrar of the High Court, Winneba is a necessary party to this suit whose presence in the matter will ensure that all matters in dispute in this suit, particularly the purported judicial sale of the land in dispute, will be effectively and completely determined. 5. The Defendant is not opposed to the application. 6. It is provided in Order 4 rule 5 (2) (b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) as follow: “At any stage of the proceedings the Court may on such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or on application 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.” 2 7. It was also held in the case of Boateng Asante vs. Scanship Ghana Limited (Civil Appeal No. J4/15/2013 dated 15th January, 2014) that “The basic principle of common law of cardinal importance regulating joinder of parties is that the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party shall not operate to defeat any cause or matter and the court may determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter.” 8. The prayers of the Plaintiff in this joinder application is that the Registrar of the High Court, Winneba, is a necessary party to this suit in view of the claim by the Defendant that it obtained the disputed property through the judicial sale executed by the High Court, Winneba. 9. What purpose does the Plaintiff seek to achieve by joining the Registrar, Winneba High Court, if one may ask? From the affidavit in support of the Plaintiff, the goal the Plaintiff seeks to achieve is for the Registrar, High Court, Winneba, to be joined to this suit to throw light on the fact of the judicial sale of the subject property and provide any relevant documentation and information on same, concerning what transpired before the judicial sale was effected. There is no doubt that the rules allow a court to use its discretion to join a party to a suit if the court is of the considered opinion that joining that party to the suit will lead to effectual and complete disposal of the suit. 10. Thus, in the case of Vandervell Trustees Ltd v White [1970] 3 All ER 16, Dilhorne LJ in the course of his judgment observed as follows: 3 “… I cannot construe the language of the rule as meaning that a party can be added whenever it is just or convenient to do so. That could have been simply stated if the rule was intended to mean that. However wide an interpretation is given, it must be an interpretation of the language used. The rule does not give power to add a party whenever it is just or convenient to do so. It gives power to do so only if he ought to have been joined as a party or if his presence is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication on all matters in dispute in the cause or matter.” 11. But if I may ask, is there any other cost-effective and time-saving method available and in substitution to joining the Registrar as a party to this suit? The relevance of the above question will be seen if one considers the need to conduct trials speedily and at reduced expense. (See Order 1 rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47.)) This court has given a thoughtful consideration to the prayers of the Plaintiff and it is of the considered view that joining the Registrar of the High Court, Winneba to this suit will defeat the admonitions to the courts under Order 1 rule 2 of C.I. 47 as acceding to the Plaintiff’s prayers will come with issues like unnecessary expense, inconvenience and delays. 12. In the first place, the Registrar is an officer of the court with a very busy schedule to run and joining him to this suit will mean that he may have to sacrifice part of his busy schedule to be able to meet filing and attendance requirements associated with such a joinder. Again, joining the Registrar to this suit comes with expense in the form of filing fees, use of legal services of a lawyer and court attendance. The very busy schedules of the Registrar will also mean that it may occasion delays to 4 the trial of this suit especially if he is unable to attend court on given days due to the exigencies of his official duties. 13. It is the considered view of this court that the most cost effective and time-saving method that the Plaintiff is respectfully invited to consider is the option of issuing of a subpoena to compel the Registrar to appear before this court in a day or two with all relevant documentation and information to testify to the fact of the judicial sale of the subject property and all the surrounding circumstances, without burdening the Judicial Service and the Registrar with expense and inconvenience. With respect, such a method will have the same effect of resolving the issues surrounding the judicial sale of the subject property as if the Registrar had been joined as a party. In the respectful view of this court, the Registrar, High Court, Winneba is not a necessary party in the true sense of the rule, but he could be subpoenaed as a witness to speak to the facts of the judicial sale of the disputed property. 14. For the reasons stated above, this application will be declined and same is hereby refused as this court thinks it is not the most convenient and cost effective way of achieving the goals the Plaintiff seeks through this application. The application is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff to exploit other cost effective and time saving ways to invite the Registrar of the Winneba High Court to testify in this matter. 15. There will be no order as to cost. (SGD) EDWARD TWUM J. (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) 5