ABDUL MAJID EL-JAMAL AND ANOTHER vs. DELFINO ENTERTAINMENT LTD AND ANOTHER [2017]DLHC3457

Date	2017-02-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/0046/16
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3457

GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

JONATHAN SABLAH FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

KWAME NKRUMAH BOTSIO FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

[2017]DLHC3457
																																						<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" >ABDUL MAJID EL-JAMAL AND
ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DELFINO ENTERTAINMENT
LTD AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>SUIT NO. CM/0046/16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;21ST FEBRUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

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

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JONATHAN SABLAH FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS <o:p></o:p>KWAME NKRUMAH BOTSIO FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

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

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>Order 11 rule 8 (1) (a) provides: “a party shall in any pleading subsequent to a statement of claim plead
specifically any matter, for example, performances, release, any limitation
provision, fraud, or any fact showing illegality <o:p></o:p>(a) which a party alleges
makes any claim or defence of the opposite party not maintainable.” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the instant application the defendants/applicants pray for
leave to amend the statement of defence in order to plead the fact of
illegality of the transaction which forms the basis of this action. It is the
case of the defendants/applicants that the plaintiffs were not Ghanaian
citizens when they entered into the Agreement with the defendants. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their view the lottery and gaming industry had been reserved
for only Ghanaian citizens by the GIPC Act, 1994 which was repealed by the 2013
Act. The plaintiffs resist the said application. They contend mainly that the
effect of the amendment would be a change in the nature of the defence of the
defendants. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have given consideration to the principles governing the grant or
otherwise of applications for amendment. I have also given consideration to the
oral submissions of both counsel. I am of the considered opinion that the facts
which the defendants/applicants are seeking to introduce by way of amendment is
so fundamental as it goes to the capacity of the parties to enter into the
transaction which gave rise to the present action. <o:p></o:p>As it were, should it be established that the transaction, the
basis of this action, is illegal, then, a court of law cannot enforce an illegality
and should therefore not lend its support to such an illegality. As has been
provided by Order 11 rule 8(1) (a) of CI 47, such fact of illegality must be
specifically pleaded. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is therefore my considered opinion that the amendment being
sought falls under the provisions of Order 11 rule 8(1) (a) of CI47 and ought
to be granted. Same is granted. The defendants/applicants are to amend their
pleadings within 7 days. I award costs to the plaintiffs assessed at
GHS1,500.00 against defendants. <o:p></o:p>

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