Clement Agbesi & 4194 Ors v Ghana Ports & Harbours Authority Civil Appeal No. J4/20/2007
Material Facts:
The plaintiffs-respondents-appellants, hereafter the plaintiffs, were casual workers of the defendant-appellant-respondent, hereafter the respondent. The plaintiffs instituted an action against the respondent for, among others, damages for breach of the provisions of a Collective Bargaining Agreement and for compensation for the respondent unlawfully keeping them as casual workers.
The writ of summons by which the plaintiffs commenced the action in the High Court initially had the names of only five persons as plaintiffs with the addition of “others.” The name, identities, and exact number of persons that constituted “others” were not disclosed on the writ. The plaintiffs then filed an “addendum to writ,” stating that “a full and comprehensive detailed list of all the plaintiffs will be supplied to the Court subsequently.” They later filed a list containing the details of 3839 persons as plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs applied to the court to include the names of 356 others as plaintiffs, and the application was granted. The court ordered that the title of the suit should be amended to include the names of the new applicants as plaintiffs.
Procedural History:
At the trial court, judgement was given for the 3839 and 356 and original 5 plaintiffs. The defendant appealed, contending that at the close of the respective cases at the trial, only 5 persons were on record as having sued as plaintiffs. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs at trial were only five, while the minority held that the plaintiffs consisted of 5 original plaintiffs and 3839 and 356 persons, making a total of 4195 plaintiffs (4194 if you isolate Clement Agbesi and add “&4194 Ors”). The plaintiff-respondents appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Were the 4194 plaintiffs properly before the court according to the rules of court governing civil procedure in the High Court?
Holding:
Only the original five plaintiffs were properly before the High Court as plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi:
Before discussing the grounds for appeal, their lordships provided the following opinion on what should happen if there are multiple plaintiffs:
We wish to hazard an opinion at this stage that the title of a writ of summons must have the name/s of all plaintiff(s) or as many as it can contain on its face, or on a piece of paper attached to the writ (if the writ cannot contain all the names). It was after this that the heading of subsequent processes can be headed the plaintiffs “and others.”
Moving on, their lordships are of the opinion that the five plaintiffs could increase the number of plaintiffs, but only through an amendment to that effect.
Their lordships then explained why the number of plaintiffs in any suit should be known at any given point:
It was of a vital importance the identity and number of the parties in any suit was known at any given stage of the proceedings. The real necessity to do so was for the plaintiffs or defendant to know who their adversaries were so that they could raise issues of estoppel and mount real defences, etc, against each other should it become necessary so to do, at any stage of the proceedings or in the future, or for the plaintiffs’ claim/s or defendant’s liability/ies fought on the merits. It would also make service of court processes easier, for the parties would know who to serve with any process. In this case the question is how were the “others” in the writ served with any of the processes filed by the defendant?
Where it becomes necessary to supplement the list of plaintiffs, this should be with the leave of court for in this case the full list was provided after the statement of defence and reply had been filed. In fact summons for directions had been filed on 20-11- 03 and under the rules of court pleadings had closed. At that stage a party could only amend with the leave of court. Apparently, no leave had been applied for or granted for the filing of the full list of 3839 persons as plaintiffs. The majority opinion on the point was more correct than that of the minority.
...
We agree with the reasons and affirm the majority decision/opinion that under the circumstances, “the 3839 names were total strangers to the writ”. The contrary decision by the minority on this issue is rejected as being an error.
Regarding the 356 persons, the records show that the court granted an application to include their names as plaintiffs. By that order, the title of the suit was to be amended to include the names of the 356 persons. There was no evidence that the five plaintiffs amended the writ to include their names. In concluding on the matter, their lordships hold that:
An applicant in whose favor an order of joinder, or any other, has been made has the duty to observe and implement the terms upon which the application was granted to the letter. If he did not (take such steps as are necessary to comply with the terms and implement them) the order becomes void and the effect in law was that the person/s did not become a plaintiff/s.
Principles in Case: