BIZGEO CO. LTD (PLAINTIFF) vs. ADANSI GOLD GH. LTD (DEFENDANT) [2016]DLHC7233

Date	2016-04-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/182/12
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC7233

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

DANIEL CHRISTOPHER OFORI FOR MAXWELL LOGAN FOR PLAINTIFF

GOLDA DENYO FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC7233
																																						<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" >BIZGEO CO.
LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ADANSI GOLD
GH. LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<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. RPC/182/12&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 11TH
APRIL, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>DANIEL
CHRISTOPHER OFORI FOR MAXWELL LOGAN FOR PLAINTIFF <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">

GOLDA
DENYO FOR THE DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 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-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On the 16th of March, I refused an
application for leave to amend the pleadings of the plaintiff/applicant and
reserved my reasons which I now proceed to give.<o:p></o:p>In the said application plaintiff wanted to amend the
writ of summons by adding two new reliefs.&nbsp;
The first is that the plaintiff asked for leave to add a relief for the
recovery of the sum of USD99,240.00 or its cedi equivalent. &nbsp;The second being interest at 1.4% on the said
sum from 14th January, 2011 to date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>Moving the motion, counsel contended that the
necessity for the amendment had been occasioned by an answer which the
plaintiff’s representative gave to a question asked by defence counsel on the 2nd
of July, 2015.&nbsp; I have examined the
answer which the witness gave on the said date to the question.&nbsp; I do not think that it constitute sufficient
evidence for one to conclude that evidence had been led to justify an amendment
for the pleadings to be in line with the evidence.<o:p></o:p>The question is, at what point did the plaintiff obtain
the information which forms the basis of this claim. From exhibit B’ attached
to the supplementary affidavit in support, the plaintiff submitted an invoice
dated 16th January, 2016.&nbsp;
Clearly it can be seen that this invoice is an afterthought as the
answer the plaintiff is relying on was given on the 2nd of July,
2015 and the said invoice was prepared in January 2016. &nbsp;If the plaintiff says that there was a mistake
in the computation of the amount sated in the invoice submitted to the
defendant, upon which the original claim is based, I do not think that that can
be true. Had the said invoice been in existence prior to the date the evidence
was given, &nbsp;I would have accepted the claim
of error put in by the plaintiff.&nbsp; Again
the interest that the plaintiff is asking on the said USD99,240.00 has been
stated to take effect from January 2016.&nbsp;
This is also a clear manifestation of bad faith on the part of the
plaintiff. From all indications, it appears to me that this invoices has not
been brought to the attention of the defendant until January, 2016 when
plaintiff has closed its case and defendant had started leading evidence to
prove its case.&nbsp; Sight must not be lost
to the fact that granting leave to amend, the court should take account of the
good faith of the applicant in bringing the application.&nbsp; To my mind, the application has been brought
in bad faith in addition to the lack of sufficient evidence to back the
amendment sought.<o:p></o:p>Furthermore, the grant of the application shall
prejudice the case of the defendant.&nbsp; In
addition it shall cause unreasonable delay in the determination of the
case.&nbsp; From the matters put before the
court, it is even clear that the defendant rejected this invoice.&nbsp; I must say that, it might be true the
plaintiff made an error, but the circumstances leading to the preparation of
the invoice and the need to seek an amendment makes the whole exercise that of
an afterthought.&nbsp; In the circumstance, it
would be unjust for the court to allow the plaintiff to be granted leave to
amend as he prayed for.&nbsp; It was for these
reasons that I refused the application.<o:p></o:p>I award cost of GHS2,000.00 against the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>