MS SHERRY AYITEY vs. GIHOC DISTILLERIES CO. LTD [2005]DLCA6536

Date	2005-03-24
Suit No.	H1/196/2004
Citation No.	[2005]DLCA6536

AKAMBA J.A (PRESIDING)

PIESARE JA.

OSEI J A.

TAMAKLOE & PARTNERS FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

DAVID O. LAMPTEY FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2005]DLCA6536
																																						<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" >MS SHERRY
AYITEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GIHOC
DISTILLERIES CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT
/APPELLANT)<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">H1/196/2004&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 24TH
MARCH, 2005<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">DAVID O. LAMPTEY FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">AKAMBA, J.A (PRESIDING)
PIESARE, JA. AND OSEI, J A.<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AKAMBA,
JA. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal from the ruling of Ms Felicity Amoah, J., delivered on 17th April
2002 in which she granted partial leave to the defendant/appellant to amend his
statement of defence and counterclaim. <o:p></o:p>The
gist of this matter is that the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred as
plaintiff) issued a writ of summons against the defendant/appellant company
(hereinafter referred as the defendant) seeking among others, a declaration
that the termination of her appointment as Managing Director by the defendant
company was unfair/wrongful and alternatively that the said termination was in
breach of plaintiff’s fundamental human rights and articles 23 and 191 of the
1992 Constitution of Ghana. The plaintiff also sought an order of injunction
against the defendant and its agents, servants – Board of Directors etc from
interfering with the performance of her functions as Managing Director of
Defendant Company and the enjoyment of benefits attached to her office as
Managing Director. The writ was accompanied by a twenty paragraph affidavit.
The defendant company also filed an eighteen paragraph statement of defence to
the action on 9th November 2001. The defendant subsequently changed its legal
representation in the conduct of this case. <o:p></o:p>The
new lawyer sought the leave of the court to file an amended statement of defence
and counterclaim on 21st January 2002. On 17th April 2002, the High Court, so
it is urged on us, declined the appellant the leave sought to amend. The court
in its refusal to grant the leave was of the view that if facts have come to
the notice of counsel after filing a defence, these new facts must conform to
the nature of the earlier defence filed and not to depart entirely from the
defence earlier filed. The court also stated as a fact that <o:p></o:p>“the
new matters raised, may embarrass and spring a surprise on the plaintiffs”. The
court therefore ruled that the leave sought by the defendant to add further
amendments to the defendant’s counterclaim could not be granted for the reason
that the amendments sought were “embarrassing, scandalous and departing from
the earlier defence”. <o:p></o:p>The
defendant who is aggrieved by the ruling of the trial High Court has filed the
following grounds of appeal namely; <o:p></o:p>“(A)
That the learned judge was wrong in refusing the amendment on the ground that
certain paragraphs in the proposed amendment are scandalous, embarrassing to
the plaintiff and spring a surprise on the plaintiff because these paragraphs
allege incompetence, fraudulent collusion between the plaintiff and the main
suppliers of raw materials to the defendant and misuse of political influence.
But these paragraphs allege statement of fact which if proved constitute a
genuine defence to the plaintiffs claim. <o:p></o:p>(B)
That the learned judge was wrong in refusing the amendment on the ground that
it was substantially different from an earlier statement of defence filed by
another lawyer on behalf of the defendant because the defendant at this early
stage of the proceedings when the application for the amendment was made is
entitled to amend by changing completely the original defence so long as the
amendment discloses genuine and sustainable defence. <o:p></o:p>(C)
That by disallowing the amendment the learned judge has prevented the defendant
from making a genuine counterclaim to which the defendant under the rules is
entitled to make. <o:p></o:p>(D)
That the learned Judge gave her ruling without regard to the applicable rules
of</main>