JOHN KWAKU OWUSU vs. FORCE FIVE ENGINEERING GHANA LIMITED [2017]DLHC4157

Date	2017-06-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 183/2015
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4157

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE HIGH COURT JUDGE

SAEED KOFI SAM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

DR. ERNEST OWUSU DAPAAH FOR THE DEFENDANT CO.

[2017]DLHC4157
																																						<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" >JOHN KWAKU OWUSU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FORCE FIVE ENGINEERING GHANA LIMITED <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. OCC 183/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 12TH JUNE, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>SAEED KOFI SAM FOR THE
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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Order 16 rule 5 (1) of the
High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (CI 47) provides:<o:p></o:p>“5.
(1) Subject to Order 4 rules 5 and 6 and to the following provisions of this
rule, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings upon an application by the
plaintiff or any other party grant leave to<o:p></o:p>(a)
the plaintiff to amend the plaintiff's writ; or <o:p></o:p>(b)
any party to amend the party's pleading; on such terms as to costs or otherwise
as may be just and in such manner as it may direct.”<o:p></o:p>Pursuant to Order 16 rule
5 (1) (b) of CI 47 the defendant has filed a motion on notice praying this
Honourable Court for leave to amend her statement of defence.<o:p></o:p>The grounds of the
application are contained in the Affidavit in Support filed on the 15th
of May, 2017. The gravamen of the applicant’s motion per the affidavit is that
the proposed amendment contains relevant pleadings that are crucial to the
final determination of the case. <o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff/Respondent
is opposed to the application and has demonstrated the grounds in an affidavit
in opposition filed on 17th of May, 2017. The import of the
Respondent’s opposition is among other things that the amendment seeks to change
the case of the defendant and that the move will further prejudice the
plaintiff and embarrass the trial of the case.<o:p></o:p>Submissions
by Counsel<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the
defendant/applicant submitted that the principle which governs the application
for leave to amend pleadings basically comes down to whether the amendment is
just to the other party.&nbsp; Counsel further
submitted that the amendment sought does not depart from the framework of claim
that has been set out in the statement of defence and that it also does not
depart from the witness statement.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Counsel also submitted that the affidavit in opposition particularly
paragraphs 10 to 20 are direct responses to the amendments being sought and that
shows that the plaintiff is not being surprised, as they have ably responded to
the averments.&nbsp; That if the Court grants
the application it will not lead to an injustice. He cited Order 1 rule 1 (2)
of CI 47 and argued that the amendment will enhance effective justice and avoid
multiplicity of proceedings. Counsel also relied on the following cases:<o:p></o:p>Gale
v Superdrug Stores Plc [1996] 3 ALL ER 468 at 477<o:p></o:p>In
Re Ashalley Botwe Stool Lands [2003/2004] SCGLR 420<o:p></o:p>Yeboah
v Bafour (1971) 2 GLR 199 <o:p></o:p>Hausa
v Hausa (1992)2 GLR 469<o:p></o:p>Counsel submitted that the
doors of justice should not be shut in the face of the applicant.&nbsp; He therefore prayed that the motion should be
granted.<o:p></o:p>In opposing the
application, counsel for the plaintiff/respondent relied on the affidavit in
opposition.&nbsp; He submitted that the rules
of Court enjoins litigants not to do their cases piece meal and that per Order
1 r 1 (2) of C.I. 47 parties are required to put their cards on the table so
that th</main>