SONIAG COMPANY LTD vs. BOND FINANCIAL SAVINGS AND LOANS LTD [2016]DLHC3517

Date	2016-06-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CM/0050/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC3517

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY SONIA ANTWI

DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY EMMANUEL NEEQUAGYE

FELIX QUARTEY ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

K. FREDUA–AGYEMAN DANSO ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2016]DLHC3517
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">SONIAG
COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>BOND FINANCIAL SAVINGS AND LOANS LTD&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 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.CM/0050/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 JUNE, 2016 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF
REPRESENTED BY SONIA ANTWI <o:p></o:p>DEFENDANT
REPRESENTED BY EMMANUEL NEEQUAGYE <o:p></o:p>FELIX
QUARTEY, ESQ. FOR 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">

K. FREDUA–AGYEMAN DANSO, ESQ. FOR
DEFENDANT/APPLICANT <o:p></o:p>

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>By this application Plaintiff seeks for leave to file
a rejoinder to the Plaintiff’s reply and defence to his counterclaim. In an
affidavit in support of this application the deponent has noted that
particulars that ought to have been particularized in the statement of claim
was not done and was accordingly raised in the statement of defence by drawing
the attention of the plaintiff to it. Subsequently in plaintiff’s reply to the
statement of defence and a counter claim, plaintiff has supplied those particulars.
And that with the supply of those particulars, it thinks that the nature of its
defence ought to shift in answer to the particulars now provided.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Defendant has vehemently resisted the application for
a number of reasons. One that the application is unwarranted by the rules of
court and only a calculated attempt to enable plaintiff substitute a new
defence to the statement of defence filed by him and that if particulars had
not been provided, defendant could have asked for better and further particulars.
And again that if plaintiff was of the opinion that it needed to file any
further pleadings it was entitled to apply for leave to amend the statement of
defence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is provided by Order 11 Rule Rule 4 that <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">“No pleading subsequent to a reply shall be filed except with leave of the
Court”. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">What it means is that a rejoinder or any
further pleadings being in the nature of an amendment or otherwise may be
available only with leave of court as the plaintiff/applicant is seeking.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">I must state that in terms of the counter
claim by defendant, with a defence filed by the plaintiff, the defendant is
entitled as a matter of right to file a reply to the defence to the counter
claim. For it has always been the law as noted as far back in the case of<o:p></o:p>AMON v BOBBETT
(1889) 22 QBD 543 where Browne LJ noted that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “a counter claim is
to be viewed and to be treated for all purposes for which justice requires it
to be so treated as an independent action”.<o:p></o:p>See also Dotse JSC in the case of JASS CO. LTD v APPAU [2009] SCGLR 269. And if the defendant
intended to respond to any averment made in the defence to the counter claim,
the defendant was the plaintiff and the plaintiff the defendant as far as the
counter claim was concerned and need no leave to file any process.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I reckon that the present action of the</main>