Constant Gladzah } Plaintiff Vrs Met Capital Group [2022] GHAHC 57 (30 November 2022)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT HELD IN ACCRA ON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JUSTIN KOFI DORGU (MR.) ========================================================== CONSOLIDATED SUITS NO: GJ/0158/2020 GJ/0212/2020 CONSTANT GLADZAH } PLAINTIFF VRS. MET CAPITAL GROUP } DEFENDANT GEORGE AFFUL } PLAINTIFF AND VRS. MET CAPITAL GROUP } DEFENDANT ======================================================= PARTIES: 1ST PLAINTIFF PRESENT 2ND PLAINTIFF ABSENT APPLICANTS ABSENT COUNSEL: EDEM LITHUR HOLDING BRIEF FOR AMINA ALI ISSAKA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS - PRESENT ====================================================================== RULING In this case, both Plaintiffs are making a simple claim of some investments made by them with the Defendant MET Capital Groups Ltd. The two cases which were later consolidated were both initiated in 2020 and have travelled through the processes and hearing commenced in earnest. As at now both Plaintiffs have closed their cases and the Defendant was to open their case. It is at that stage that the Applicant herein describing themselves as Receivers of Unicorn Happy Investment (UHI) Microfinance Ltd are applying to be joined as a 2nd Defendant to the consolidated suit. The gravamen of their application is their interest as a Receiver for the Unicorn Happy Investment (UHI) Microfinance Ltd whose license had been revoked by the Bank of Ghana and all assets and liabilities of the Microfinance Company transferred by operation of Law to the Receiver/Applicants. It is the case of the Applicants that, Mr. George Afful, one of the Plaintiffs who was at all material times the Managing Director of Unicorn Happy Investment Microfinance Ltd who dealt with the (UHI) Microfinance through the Defendant and since they have now assumed the assets and liabilities of UHI Microfinance Ltd, they have an interest in the outcome of the case hence a necessary party to the action. The Plaintiff especially the 1st one, Constant Gladzah opposed the joinder arguing that at the time UHI Microfinance Ltd was taken over, any investment held either on its behalf or for George Afful as an individual had already been assigned to him. There was therefore no interest of UHI Microfinance Ltd subsisting and so worth protecting. Apart from that, the Plaintiff also canvassed the point that the case had travelled far and a joinder of the Applicant herein will only go to delay the resolution of an otherwise simple case. They prayed the Court to dismiss the application. Now, Order 4 rule 5(2) (b) of the C. I 47 provides “ At any stage of proceedings, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or an application (b) 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” The question that arises in this application is whether or not the Receiver of UHI Microfinance Ltd is a necessary party in the resolution of the case between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. In this consolidated case, the issues set down for trial by both Parties are:- 1. Whether or not the 1st Plaintiff Constant Gladzah invested some funds with the Defendant Company 2. Whether or not Mr. George Afful invested some funds with the Defendant Company 3. Whether or not Plaintiff (2) instructed the Defendant to make an assignment valued GH¢770, 000 out of the total redemption value on the said investment to one Constant Gladzah 4. Whether or not the Defendant Company issued a letter confirming the said assignment of investment in favour of the Plaintiff herein with assurances to pay same. 5. Whether or not the said confirmation of assignment was procured by fraud 6. Whether or not the current redemption value of the said investment stands at GH¢2, 162, 874.93 without interest. Now, if these are the issues set down for trial, then where comes the role of Unicom Happy Investment Microfinance Ltd and for that matter the Applicant herein and what makes them a necessary party in the resolution of these issues? Quite apart from that, the hearing of this case has come very far with the defence due to open. By the Applicant’s own showing, the license of UHI Microfinance Ltd was revoked on or about 31st May, 2019. From that date according to the Applicants, they have become vested with all the assets and liabilities of UHI Microfinance Ltd. Unfortunately, the Applicants have waited for two years to bring this application in defence of a liability they took upon themselves. I think it is too late in the day as a grant of the application will halt all progress made so far since it will revert the case to the pleadings stage. A Plaintiff who brings his case to Court expects that his claims will be tried timeously and expeditiously. For the above reasons, I do not see the Applicants as a necessary party to this action and joining them will only delay the resolution of this case. The application is thus refused. (SGD) JUSTICE JUSTIN K. DORGU (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) 4