S. T. F. Company Ltd .... … ... ... Plaintiff/respondent Vrs George Anderson [2022] GHAHC 101 (28 October 2022)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE LAND DIVISION (COURT ELEVEN (11), LAW COURT COMPLEX HELD IN ACCRA ON FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE AMOS WUNTAH WUNI SUIT NO. LD/0100/2020 S. T. F. COMPANY LTD .... … ... ... PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT VRS GEORGE ANDERSON 1. STATE HOUSING COMPANY LTD DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT 2. LANDS COMMISSION JULIANA ANDERSON ... ... ... ... APPLICANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID ANDERSON (DECEASED) RULING Order 4 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) which is the applicable rule of court relative to the instant application for Joinder provides: “Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties 5. (1) No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of any party; and the Court may in any proceeding determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the proceedings. (2) At any stage of proceedings, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or on application - 1 - (a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who for any reason is no longer a party or a necessary party to cease to be a party; (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 Plaintiff/Respondent in this suit contends that it holds a leasehold interest in respect of a piece or parcel of land situate at Labone granted by the Lands Commission (3rd Defendant). In taking possession of the land, the 1st Defendant claimed its ownership. The Plaintiff/Respondent then issued the instant writ against the 1st Defendant/Respondent, George Anderson, who Plaintiff described as a squatter in the property. However, in his Statement of Defence, 1st Defendant/Respondent averred that he is not a squatter but a beneficiary of the Estate of one David Anderson (deceased) and that the property forms part of the estate of the deceased. The 1st Defendant further pleaded that the Administrators of the Estate are the Applicant herein and one Kwame Anderson (who died on 24 July 2020). Subsequently, the Applicant applied to join the suit, claiming to be the sole surviving Administrator. The Plaintiff/Respondent is vehemently opposed to the joinder of the Applicant on the grounds that the purported Letters of Administration having been granted to joint- administrators, the Applicant lacks capacity to act alone without being appointed as sole Administrator of the Estate or another person being appointed to replace the deceased Administrator. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff referred to the seminal case of DAVIES v. RANDALL [1964] GLR 671 where the court held that, where Letters of Administration were granted jointly, a co-administrator could not do anything without the other and that if the co-administrator did anything alone, the act was a nullity. The facts of that - 2 - case dealt with the grant of joint Letters of Administration to one Mrs Davies and the Registrar of the Court but Mrs Davies purported to sell an estate property without the participation of the Registrar. It is therefore the Plaintiff’s contention that, in seeking to join the suit, the Applicant lacks capacity to do so alone and must act in both names of the Joint Administrators or she must establish that she has now been appointed sole Administrator of the Estate of George Anderson. It is also contended by the Plaintiff/Respondent that, in seeking to join as an Administrator, the presence of both the 1st Defendant and the Applicant, concurrently in the suit would be unnecessary and therefore the 1st Defendant should be disjoined from the suit as their joint presence will create a multiplicity of Defendants, prolong the trial and inundate the Plaintiff/Respondent with unnecessary costs. In response to the written submissions relative to the motion, Counsel for the Applicant challenged Plaintiff/Respondent’s reliance on DAVIES v RANDALL (supra) to question the capacity of the Applicant as sole Administrator of the Estate of David Anderson. It is the Applicant’s contention that, DAVIES v RANDALL is distinguishable from the instant case. The learned Counsel’s contention is that, on the facts, DAVIES v RANDALL related to Letters of Administration granted to the widow of the intestate (Fanny Margaret Davies) and the Registrar of the Divisional Court, Sekondi jointly. The widow of the intestate purported to administer the estate without the participation of the co-administrator. Thus, the case of DAVIES v RANDALL relates to circumstances where an Administrator deals with the Estate of the deceased without the participation of a co-Administrator who is alive or exists. Counsel for the Applicant contends that, in the instant case, the co-administrator is deceased and is not available. The surviving administrator herein, the Applicant, being the only remaining administrator, is competent to administer the unadministered assets of the estate and does not need to apply for a special grant (as - 3 - Administrator De-bonis non). Indeed, the condition for applying for the special grant as stated in Order 66 rule 59(2) of C. I. 47 is that, all the persons to whom a grant of Letters of Administration has been made should have died without completing the administration of the Estate. In the instant case, all the persons given the Letters of Administration have not died as the Applicant is alive. Therefore, as far as the estate of David Anderson remains unadministered, the applicant is competent to proceed as she is alive and remains one of the persons granted the Letters of Administration. On Plaintiff/Respondent’s contention that the 1st Defendant be misjoined after the Applicant is joined, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the state of the pleadings and the reliefs sought would not permit such prayer. From the statement of claim of the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant has been described as “a squatter, in the said property who has refused, failed, or neglected to vacate the property despite his knowledge of the lease of the property to the plaintiff by the 3rd Defendant”. Again, the plaintiff/Respondent, per its 2nd Relief requested, is seeking an order of ejectment of the 1st defendant from the property in question. Under order 4 rule 8 of C. I. 47, the Court may in an action for possession of immovable property, at any stage of proceedings, order any person who is not a party to the action but who is in possession of the immovable property, whether personally in possession or by a tenant or agent, to be made a defendant. Again, a person also in possession of immovable property who wants to be joined as a party may make an application on notice to the court to be joined. The 1st Defendant is in possession of the immovable property in dispute. Therefore, if this court per Order 4 Rule 8 of C. I. 47, is permitted to join a person in actual possession of immovable then on that same score the court may equally permit an existing party to remain in a pending suit on the sole ground of his possession of the immovable property. The 1st Defendant is thus a proper and necessary party as it pertains to the state of the pleadings and to the 2nd relief sought by the Plaintiff/Respondent. - 4 - On the totality of the pleadings, the affidavit evidence before this court as well as the written submissions of Counsel, it is my considered view that the Applicant is a necessary party for all matters in controversy to be effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that JULIANA ANDERSON be and is hereby joined as 4th Defendant. All processes filed so far are to be served on her and the title of the Writ is to be amended accordingly within fourteen (14) days. I award costs of Two Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢2,000.00) against the Applicant in favour of the Plaintiff. (SGD.) AMOS WUNTAH WUNI (J) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT COUNSEL: NELSON ATANGA AYAMDOO ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT ANDREW DANIELS ESQ FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT KWABENA OWUSU-MENSAH ESQ FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ABUBAKARI NUHU ESQ FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT DELA BLAGOGEE ESQ FOR THE APPLICANT - 5 -