MICRO MOBILE LINKS LIMITED vs. MILLICOM GHANA COMPANY LIMITED [2018]DLHC3986

Date	2018-05-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC. 63/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3986

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

KOFI EDUSEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

STEPHEN OPPONG FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2018]DLHC3986
																																						<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" >MICRO MOBILE LINKS
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MILLICOM GHANA COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. OCC. 63/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 22ND MAY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL
<o:p></o:p>KOFI EDUSEI FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <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>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">

</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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;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>This
ruling concerns a preliminary legal objection taken to the application for
amendment of the statement of defence by the defendant/applicant herein.<o:p></o:p>The
objection relates to the nature of the amendment. It is counsel for the
plaintiff/respondent’s contention that the application is incompetent, as
counsel for the applicant did not specify precisely the nature of the amendment
but rather attached to the application a proposed amended statement of defence.
Counsel submits that the application is in violation of Order 16 rule 11(2) of
the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47).<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant is opposed to the objection and contends that the precise
nature of the amendment has been incorporated in the proposed statement of
defence. He submits that counsel for the plaintiff’s objection is a complete
misapplication of Order 16 rule 11 and that the sub rules bear the application
out. Besides, assuming, counsel for the plaintiff’s interpretation is right, he
submits that Order 81 can cure the irregularity.<o:p></o:p>The
point I am called upon to decide is whether the affidavit in support of the
motion and the proposed amended statement of defence annexed by the applicant to
the instant application satisfy the requirements under Order 16 rule 11
particularly rule 11(2). Order 16 rule 11 provides:<o:p></o:p>“Rule
11—Method of Applying for Leave<o:p></o:p>(1)
An application for leave to amend a writ or a pleading shall be made on notice
to all the other<o:p></o:p>parties
to the action.<o:p></o:p>(2)
The application shall specify precisely the nature of the amendment intended to
be made.<o:p></o:p>(3)
An affidavit may be used in an application for leave to amend under this rule.”<o:p></o:p>An
amendment may be made to introduce a new cause of action, correct an error in
the pleadings or replace an admission made among others. It is, therefore,
necessary to ensure that the nature of the amendment must be apparent on the
face of the application.<o:p></o:p>The
Indian Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh vs. Raj Kumar Aneja, (2002)2
SCC dealt with the nature of amendments. In para 13 of the report, the Honourable Supreme Court held as
follows:-<o:p></o:p>“13.
.... Unless and until the court is told how and in what manner the pleading
originally submitted to the court is proposed to be altered or amended, the
court cannot effectively exercise its power to permit amendment. An amendment
may involve withdrawal of an admission previously made, may attempt to
introduce a plea or claim barred by limitation, or, may be so devised as to
deprive the opposite party of a valuable right accrued to him by lapse of time
and so on. It is, therefore, necessary for an amendment applicant to set out
specifically in his application, seeking leave of the court for amendment in
the pleading, as to what is proposed to be omitted from or altered or
substituted in or added to the original pleading.”<o:p></o:p>In
the Gurdial Singh case (supra), the Court took into account an amendment which
is applicable in the State of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of
Chandigarh where Order 6 Rule 17 sub- clause 2 has been added which reads as
follows:<o:p></o:p>"17.(2)
Every application for amendments shall be in writing and shall state the
specific amendments which are sought to be made indicating the words or
paragrap</main>