SILAS DAWOSRA vs MARMOPAINTS (GH) LTD., AKUA F. ADDO (MRS) [2008]DLHC16630

Date	2008-11-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AC 6/2009
Citation No.	[2008]DLHC16630

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

KOKUVIE TAY

JOSEPH NKRUMAN

[2008]DLHC16630
																																						<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" >SILAS DAWOSRA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MARMOPAINTS (GH) LTD., AKUA F. ADDO (MRS)<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&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; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: -0.35pt;">

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>SUIT NO. AC&nbsp; 6/2009&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: 12TH NOVEMBER,
2008<o:p></o:p>

KOKUVIE TAY FOR PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J. <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: -0.35pt;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;On
the 14th day of October, 2008, the plaintiff filed a writ together
with a statement of claim seeking the reliefs indorsed on the writ against the
defendants.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;After
service of the writ and statement of claim on the defendants herein, they
caused an appearance to be filed on their behalf and later a statement of defence
and a counterclaim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
plaintiff then filed a reply and later an application for directions.&nbsp; When the application for directions came to
be moved, counsel for the defendants applied to have all the averments
contained in the reply together with the issues raised in the application for direction
to be struck out.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel
says that the reply is a complete departure from the statement of claim and so
offends the rules of Court.&nbsp; Counsel says
the issues raised in the application for directions flows from the reply which
is a complete departure from the statement of claim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel
for the plaintiff says that the Reply is a direct response to the averments
contained in the statement of defence and that they do not depart from the
statement of claim. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
view of the objection raised, I have taken time to read every paragraph
contained in the statement of claim, the statement of defence and the reply.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Paragraph
1 of the reply is a general averment and it’s permissible in a reply. Paragraph
2 of the reply seeks to attack paragraph 5 of the statement of defence. Indeed
paragraph 5 of the statement of defence like other paragraphs of the statement
of defence was not carefully crafted in that the pleader sought to answer a
paragraph 8(c) of the statement of claim.&nbsp;
However, the statement of claim does not contain any paragraph labeled
as paragraph 8(c).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;A
critical consideration of the said paragraph 5 of the statement of defence will
show however that it seeks to answer the averment contained in paragraph 9(c)
of the statement of claim, the plaintiff has averred that he was relying, in
proof of the contract allegedly made between himself and the defendants on a
letter written on 18th August 2008 in which the defendants claimed
that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement with the plaintiff.&nbsp; Plaintiff says defendants have failed to
produce the agreement despite repeated demands.&nbsp;
That being so the plaintiff cannot turn round to say in paragraph 2 of
the reply that paragraph 5 of the statement of defence is ‘a hoax’.&nbsp; This is so because the combined effect of
paragraphs 6 and 9(c) of the statement of claim shows that plaintiff relies on
a letter of 18th August 2008 to prove the contract by conduct.<o:p></o:p>