NIMONAT LIMITED vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DEPT. AND MINISTRY OF FINANCE [2018]DLHC3350

Date	2018-05-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.CM/RPC/0892/2016
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3350

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

KOFI KUKUBOR ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF.

NANA ABUAA BRENYA-OCTCHERE (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY) FOR DEFENDANTS.

[2018]DLHC3350
																																						<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" >NIMONAT LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
DEPT. AND MINISTRY OF FINANCE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.CM/RPC/0892/2016&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;DATE: 30TH
MAY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KOFI KUKUBOR ESQ., 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">

</div><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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
the 20th December 2016, the within named plaintiff issued a writ
against the defendants herein claiming against them “an order for the recovery
of (GH¢67,135.00) Sixty-seven thousand one hundred and thirty-five Ghana Cedis
being the amount due and owing the plaintiff.” The writ was accompanied by a
statement of claim.<o:p></o:p>An
appearance was entered on behalf of the defendants who later, filed a statement
of defence in which certain legal defences were raised to the plaintiff’s
claim. On the 17th January 2018, the defendants filed a ‘Notice of
Preliminary Legal Objection’ in which they prayed the court to set down for
preliminary legal argument and also to dismiss the plaintiff’s writ of summons
and statement of claim on the basis of legal issues raised in paragraphs 6, 8,
11 and 12 of the statement of defence. Indeed the said paragraphs state that: <o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Defendant in further answer to paragraph 7 state that assuming the Defendants
owed the Plaintiff, (which is denied), that debt is statute barred with the
lapse of time since 2007.<o:p></o:p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Defendants will raise by way of preliminary legal argument that the Plaintiff’s
action is statute barred.<o:p></o:p>11.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Defendants further states that the Plaintiff is statute barred from bringing
any action in relation to the claim as it has been 11years since the
Plaintiff’s cause of action, if any, first accrued.<o:p></o:p>12.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Wherefore
the Defendants state that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs
endorsed on its Writ of Summons or at all and same ought to be dismissed.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s claim as shown by the statement of claim particularly paragraph3 is
that:<o:p></o:p>‘sometime in September 2006, the now defunct Ghana
@ 50 Secretariat contracted the Plaintiff Company to construct (3) three two-storey&nbsp; four bedroom houses under the AFRICAN UNION
IDENTIKIT PRESIDENTIAL MANSIONS PROJECT at Cantonments, Accra in the Greater
Accra Region of Ghana.’ <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff says that the total cost of the project came to GH₵204.300.00 out of which an amount of GH₵129,461.90 was paid by the Ghana @ 50 Secretariat.
The plaintiff says in paragraph 6 and 7 of the statement of claim that after
reconciliation between the parties to the alleged contract the outstanding debt
owed to the plaintiff came to GH₵67,135.00 and that all efforts to have this debt
paid to the plaintiff proved futile since the project was taken over by the
Ghana @ 50 Secretariat in 2007. The plaintiff therefore claims per the
endorsement on its writ of summons. It is this claim of the plaintiff that the
defendants say is statute barred.<o:p></o:p>Order
33 rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47 permits the
court to try any issues arising out of the pleadings at any time during the
pendency of the case. The rule states that<o:p></o:p>3.
Time of trial of questions or issues<o:p></o:p>