ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LIMITED vs. G. NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION APPIAH-ADJEI BOATENG AND THOMAS OBENG [2010]DLHC5678

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LIMITED vs. G. NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION APPIAH-ADJEI BOATE... [2010]DLHC5678

Date	2010-07-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BC 542/2008
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC5678

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. NARTEY TETTEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MR. J. OPOKU AGYEI WITH MR. EMMANUEL LARBI AMOAH FOR THE CO-DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

[2010]DLHC5678
																																						<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" >ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>G.
NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>APPIAH-ADJEI BOATENG
AND THOMAS OBENG<o:p></o:p>(1ST
AND 2ND
CO-DEFENDANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO.BC 542/2008&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: 16TH JULY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. NARTEY TETTEH FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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">

MR. J. OPOKU AGYEI WITH MR. EMMANUEL
LARBI AMOAH FOR THE CO-DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <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">

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU<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">

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

</div>This
Ruling is in respect of an application for leave to amend the Co-Defendants/ Applicants’
Statement of Defence and Counterclaim under Order 16 Rule 5 of CI 47. The main ground for the application as
stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support is to bring the pleadings in
line with the evidence so far led. According to the Applicants this will enable
them to respond to evidence that has already been led. They claim that the
Plaintiff/Respondent has given evidence to the extent that the Co-Defendants
were employees of MBC who are being managed by the AGC on behalf of MBC. They
are, therefore, not employees of AGC. The Applicants are saying that this
evidence of the Respondent is not true. They claim they are employees of AGC
and that it is no true that they are being managed by AGC on behalf of MBC.
They are as a result seeking leave of the court to amend their Statement of
Defence and Counterclaim to bring it in line with the evidence already led.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Plaintiff/Respondent has opposed the application on grounds that both the
plaintiff and the defendant have closed their cases. Meanwhile, the application
seeks to raise new issues for the trial to be re-opened. Also the amendment
will delay the conclusion of the proceedings, transform the matter and that it
will be unjust for the Plaintiff who must start preparations for the trial of
fresh issues.<o:p></o:p>This
application has been brought under Order
16 Rule 5 of CI 47. It is provided in Rule
5(1) that the Court may grant leave to any party to amend his pleading at
any stage of the proceedings upon an application on such terms as to cost or
otherwise as may be just and in such manner as it may direct.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The said
provision shows that whether or not the Court may grant leave to any party to
amend his pleading is the discretion of the Court, which must be exercised
judiciously. That is in deciding whether or not to grant it, the guiding
principle is that, whatever decision that is taken must be just.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Several
authorities have provided principles that should guide the Court in deciding
whether or not to grant an application for leave to amend. I will consider some
of these authorities in this ruling.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In Robertson vrs Reindorf (1971) 2 GLR 289,
the Court of Appe</main>