BARCLAYS BANK OF GHANA LTD. vs. CONTINENTAL COMMODITIES TRADING CO. LTD & 4 OTHERS [2017]DLHC9081

BARCLAYS BANK OF GHANA LTD. vs. CONTINENTAL COMMODITIES TRADING CO. LTD & 4 OTHE... [2017]DLHC9081

Date	2017-01-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/0294/16
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC9081

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

MAXWELL K. LOGAN ESQ. OF LOGAN & ASSOCIATES FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

SAMUEL M. CODJOE ESQ. OF LAW TRUST COMPANY FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

[2017]DLHC9081
																																						<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" >BARCLAYS
BANK OF GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CONTINENTAL
COMMODITIES TRADING CO. LTD &amp; 4 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. CM/0294/16&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
18TH JANUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MAXWELL
K. LOGAN, ESQ. OF LOGAN &amp; ASSOCIATES FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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">

SAMUEL
M. CODJOE, ESQ., OF LAW TRUST COMPANY FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA
DADZIE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
me today is a motion on notice filed by the Defendants/Applicants herein
(hereinafter, the “Applicants”) seeking leave of the Court to amend their
statement of defence pursuant to the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004
(C.I 47), Order 16 thereof.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the affidavit accompanying the
motion paper are the following grounds on which the Applicants base the need
for the requested amendment.&nbsp; It is the
claim of the Applicants that the amendment has been necessitated by the fact
that after conducting a reconciliation of their accounts, it has come to their
notice that they have fully paid the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter, the
“Respondent”) all the money owed it and as such they are not indebted to the
Respondent.&nbsp; It is further asserted in
the affidavit in support of the motion paper that at the time of filing their
defence, these facts were unknown to the Applicants as they had not completed
the reconciliation of their accounts by that time.&nbsp; For this reason, they prepared their defence
under the mistaken belief that the accounts as presented to them by the
Respondent reflected the true state of the accounts as between the parties,
with the result that the statement of defence as it stands now is at variance,
in material aspects, with the true state of the accounts between the
parties.&nbsp; The Applicants therefore argue
that the amendment sought is essential to the effective administration of
justice as it would afford Applicants the opportunity to lead evidence to prove
that they do not owe Respondent any money whatsoever.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent is
opposed to this application on grounds which are set out in its affidavit in
opposition.&nbsp; It is the contention of the
Respondent that in light of the provisions of Order 23 of the C.I 47,
the Applicants are deemed in law to have admitted statements that set out the
amounts owed by the Applicants to the Respondent and there is therefore no
controversy to be resolved or issue to be joined on the indebtedness of the
Applicants.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Respondent claims that it served Applicants with discoveries by way of Notice
to Admit Documents.&nbsp; Two (2) of the
documents sought to be admitted were statements culled from the Applicants’
corporate current account and loan account which showed the indebtedness of the
Applicants in the debit balance of the two statements.&nbsp; In responding to this request, Applicants did
not either admit or deny the authenticity of the statements in the Notice to
Admit that was served on them.&nbsp; It is the
claim of the Respondent, then, that the failure of the Applicants to deny or
admit the statements, the authenticity of the documents and the amounts showed
as owed therein, the statements and their contents were deemed in law to have
been admitted, for which reason no dispute fell to be adjudicated by the court
on that matter.&nbsp; The Respondent contends
further that as a matter of law, admissions once made cannot be changed by way
of amendment and that the current application is brought malafide and as an afterthought and in reality is a back door
attempt by the Applicants to withdraw an admission made in these proceedings
contrary to the rules and procedures of this Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
adjudicating the matter presented before me, I have examined all the </main>