CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW (CEPIL) FACOL CONSTRUCTION vs. TEMA OIL REFINERY [2012]DLCA8670

Date	2012-03-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/19/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8670

MRS. ABBAN J.A.

OFOE J.A.

AYEBI J.A.

MR. KWAME ADOBOR FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

MR. KUMI LARBI FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2012]DLCA8670
																																						<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" >CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW (CEPIL) FACOL CONSTRUCTION<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0"><o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>TEMA OIL
REFINERY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.H1/19/2012&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:
22ND MARCH, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
KWAME ADOBOR FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
KUMI LARBI FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MRS.
ABBAN J.A., OFOE J.A., AYEBI J.A.<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE,
J.A:<o:p></o:p>The main consideration in this appeal is whether the
trail judge’s refusal to grant the defendant’s application for leave to amend
was a proper exercise of discretion. We would continue to refer to the parties
as plaintiff and defendant as they were at the trial court. A summary of the
case between the parties should serve a useful background to understanding this
ruling. The plaintiff has sued the defendant for polluting the Chemu Lagoon by its
continuous damping and spillage of hydro carbon substances into this lagoon. &nbsp;This act according to the plaintiff is causing
the virtual death of life in the said lagoon. Not only has this contamination,
which the plaintiffs consider a negligent act of the defendant, affected the
rights of the people around this lagoon to a clean and healthy environment but
also fishery, bird life and other wild life is running towards stagnation.
Indeed the allegation continues that the socio- economic life of the
inhabitants around the Lagoon has also been adversely affected. The plaintiff
alleges that there has in the past been major oil spillage from the defendant’s
premises due to negligent handling of equipment by the workers of the defendant
or poor state of the equipment itself. Specifically on the 7th May
2007 the defendant once again spilled large quantities of oil into this lagoon
causing massive pollution thereby. In summary this is the case of the
plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendant
denied all these allegations of pollution as a result of negligence of its
workers or poor state of its equipment. In fact their defence denied any
spillage at all. This is the import of their defence. But they have a paragraph
5 which provides as follows<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“In
further answer to paragraphs 6 to 14 of the Statement of Claim.&nbsp; Defendant avers that occasional spills in
insignificant quantities from the refinery cannot be the cause of the alleged
level of pollution and annihilation of all life forms in the Chemu lagoon
mentioned in the pleadings of the Plaintiffs”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This pleading undoubtedly run counter to the main stream
defence we have already alluded to. By this paragraph they are admitting that there
had been spillage albeit occasional and in insignificant quantities. The
defendant subsequently found this pleading in paragraph 5 inadvertent and
sought to amend their defence by seeking to delete this particular paragraph
and also add a general traverse. After hearing the parties on this application
to amend the trial court refused the amendment stating:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“It
is a principal of the rules of pleading that a party cannot set up a case which
is inconsistent with its pleadings.&nbsp; The
pleadings at paragraph 5 of the statement of Defence is a material fact and to
permit the Defendant to delete it will be to prejudic</main>