ENABLIS ENTERPRISE NETWORK vs. TULLOW GHANA LIMITED [2018]DLHC3691

Date	2018-05-14
Suit No.	CM/BDC/0240/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3691

GEORGE K. KOOMSON (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)

BENEDICT ASARE MORKLEY (WITH WINIFRED ODOI QUARSHIE) LED BY

ABDALLAH ALI NAKYEA FOR PLAINTIFF

VALARIE HILDA ATUWO FOR KIMATHI KUENYEHIA FOR DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC3691
																																						<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" >ENABLIS ENTERPRISE
NETWORK<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TULLOW GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CM/BDC/0240/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 14TH MAY, 2018<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>BENEDICT ASARE MORKLEY (WITH WINIFRED ODOI QUARSHIE) LED BY
ABDALLAH ALI NAKYEA FOR PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>VALARIE HILDA ATUWO FOR KIMATHI KUENYEHIA FOR DEFENDANT <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>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>In this action the Applicant has applied to this court for an
order compelling the Respondent to furnish Applicant with further and better
particulars of paragraph 55 of the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim filed
by the Respondent. The Respondent resist the application for further and better
particulars on the grounds that the said paragraph 55 is sufficiently detailed
to inform the Applicant the basis of the allegation of fraud. The issue I have
to resolve in this application is whether or not the object of the information
requested by the Applicant for further and better particulars is to obtain
particulars of the facts narrated by the Respondent in its pleadings at
paragraph 55 of the statement of defence and counterclaim. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have read the application and the various affidavits filed by
the parties. I have also examined the pleadings filed by the Respondent. I have
given regard to the written submissions filed by both parties. I have given
thoughtful consideration to the principles governing applications of this
nature. Regard has also been given to the relevant provisions of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47. In defining the object of further and
better particulars, Archer J (as he then was) in the case of SAMPA v SACKER [1964] GLR 510-513,
quoted Cotton L.J. in SPEDDING v
FITZPATRICK (1888) 38 Ch. 410 as stating thus: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The object of
particulars is to enable the party asking for them to know what case he has to
meet at the trial, and so to save unnecessary expense, and avoid allowing
parties to be taken by surprise..... The old system of pleading at Common Law
was to conceal as much as possible what was going to be proved at the trial,
but under the present system it is our duty to see that a party so states his
case that his opponent will not be taken by surprise.” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the latter case of WANYINARA
v BASSAN [1972] 2 GLR 227, Edusei J, stated that: <o:p></o:p>“The whole
purpose of pleading is to set out in a summary form his claim or defence so
that the opposite party is not taken by surprise at the trial. The opposite
party must come to court knowing the case he has to meet. It is on these
principles that further and better statement of particulars will be ordered by
this court.” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Lartey J, summarized the object or purpose of an application for
particulars, in the case of QUANSAH v
OFOSU [1991] 1 GLR 151 as follows: <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“It is trite law that particulars of any
matter stated in any pleading may be ordered by a court. The object or purpose
of an application of particulars is to enable the Applicant to know or have a
forestate of the case he anticipates to meet at the trial; that protects the
parties from being taken by surprise; see EJURA
v. LIMAN [1966] GLR 683 Ch. D 410, C.A. Furthermore, obtaining particulars
from an opponent limits the issue; an opponent is bound by his particulars and
will not be allowed at the trial to go into any matter not fairly included
therein. In the wo</main>