WILLIAM OFORI & COMPANY vs. SOCIAL SECURITY & NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST [2004]DLCA6775

Date	2004-07-23
Suit No.	HI/58/2004.
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6775

TWUMASI JA

ASARE KORANG JA

PIESARE JA

[2004]DLCA6775
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >WILLIAM
OFORI &amp; COMPANY<o:p></o:p>(PLTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SOCIAL
SECURITY &amp; NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST<o:p></o:p>(DEFTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

TWUMASI JA, ASARE KORANG JA, PIESARE
JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>PIESARE,
JA <o:p></o:p>This
is an interlocutory appeal from the Ruling of the High Court, dated 16th May,
2001, refusing the appellant’s application for leave to amend the name of the
plaintiff in the title of the case, by seeking to substitute WILLIAM OFORI
&amp; CO with WILLIAM OFORI (Carrying on business under the name and style of
WILLIAM OFORI &amp; CO; <o:p></o:p>(2)
To substitute the figure $329, 213.29 for the figure $289,213.29 in the
endorsement; <o:p></o:p>(3)
and to delete paragraph 1 – 22 of the original statement of claim, and to
substitute 15 new paragraphs.<o:p></o:p>In
refusing the amendment sought, the Learned Judge of the court below based her
refusal on three grounds: <o:p></o:p>(1)
That it would add new parties to the suit; <o:p></o:p>(2)
That it would enable the plaintiff to change completely the nature of his case;
and <o:p></o:p>(3)
That the amendment sought was not made bona fide. <o:p></o:p>In
this appeal the appellant abandoned all the original grounds of appeal, and
argued only the additional grounds of appeal, which are: <o:p></o:p>(1)
The Trial court’s Ruling is against the weight of evidence. <o:p></o:p>(2)
The Trial Court erred when it held that the proposed amendment would add new
parties to the suit. <o:p></o:p>(3)
The Trial Court erred when it held that the proposed amendment would change
completely the nature of the case. <o:p></o:p>(4)
The Trial Court erred when it held that the application to amend is Not bona
fide and that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the amendment <o:p></o:p>Now,
the law is that where an appellant contends that the judgment is against the
weight of evidence, he assumes the burden of showing from the evidence, that
the judgment was in fact against the weight of evidence. <o:p></o:p>Boateng
v. Boateng &amp; or. [1987-88] 2 GLR 81. <o:p></o:p>Now,
the appellant’s showing under this ground is not clear. He looked at
"William Ofori &amp; Co." and says that it is clear that there is
only one person trading in his own name as William Ofori &amp; Co. But I,
cannot easily read that from William Ofori &amp; Co. <o:p></o:p>Again,
the appellant contends that the reframing of the statement of claim is only to
account of the settlement of the $40,000 through the earlier court action by
the defendant – respondents against the plaintiff "William Ofori &amp;
Co." <o:p></o:p>The
reframed statement of claim however appears loaded with new material, and does
not appear reframed to take account only of the settled $40,000. <o:p></o:p>In
effect, Ground one was not satisfactorily established, it is therefore
dismissed. <o:p></o:p>The
other Grounds touch on the principles governing amendments. They will therefore
be dealt with together, and disposed of, in sequence, one after the other. <o:p></o:p>Now,
an application for leave to amend pleadings in civil proceedings is governed by
Order 28 rule 1 of the Supreme (High) Court (Civil Proc</main>