UNIVERSAL CO-OPERATIVE COMMODITIES LTD & OTHERS vs. BOB COMMODITIES CO. LTD [2018]DLHC9300

Date	2018-04-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 05/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9300

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

KWAME ANTWI AFRIYIE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

EDWIN ANNAN FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[2018]DLHC9300
																																						<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" >UNIVERSAL CO-OPERATIVE COMMODITIES
LTD &amp; OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BOB COMMODITIES CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. OCC 05/2017&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME
ANTWI AFRIYIE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS <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" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">EDWIN
ANNAN FOR THE DEFENDANTS <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE
<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:115%;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>A This is a motion on
notice praying this Honorable court for leave to amend the statement of defence
of the 1st to 4th Defendants pursuant to Order 16 rule 5 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI47).<o:p></o:p>The
1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants are seeking the order of the Court
to enable them include a counter-claim in their statement of defence.&nbsp; Counsel for the Applicants submits that per
Order 16 rule 5 (2) of CI 47 leave to amend a statement of defence is an
unfettered right and even if the Applicant is prohibited by any statute of limitation
the Court may go ahead and grant the application.&nbsp; he also submitted that granting the
application will ensure speedy trial and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as
encouraged by Order 1 rule 1 (2) of CI 47. <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiffs/Respondents are opposed to the application.&nbsp; Counsel for the Respondents submits that the
coming into force of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Amendment) Rules, 2014 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CI 87) into our civil procedure
jurisprudence has substantially altered the scope of amendments.&nbsp; He argues that Order 16 rule 5 was there before
CI 87 came into force.&nbsp; He submits that
the intention of the pretrial check list which was introduced by CI 87 is to
avoid delays and that once a party has answered in the pretrial check list that
he does not intend to amend his pleadings, he is precluded from seeking an
amendment in future.&nbsp; He further submits
that in the light of CI 87, Order 16 rule 5 of CI 47 is no longer a wholesale
provision which permits an amendment at any time.&nbsp; He invites the Court to dismiss the
application since the Applicants indicated in their pretrial check list that
they do not intend to seek an amendment of their pleadings. <o:p></o:p>After
perusing the processes filed and after hearing Counsel for both parties; two
issues could be resolved in this application: <o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the Defendants are estopped
from amending their &nbsp; statement of defence
in the face of the requirements of CI 87; and <o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the Court should grant leave to
the Defendants to &nbsp;&nbsp; amend their
statement&nbsp; of defence. <o:p></o:p>In
addressing the first issue, attention shall be focused on whether CI 87 has
amended Order 16 rule 5 of CI 47 and whether the Defendants are estopped from
amending their pleadings since they indicated in the pretrial check list that&nbsp; they do not intend to amend their pleadings. <o:p></o:p>A
cursory look at the provisions of CI 87 show that it amended Orders 32, 34, 38,
41 and 58 of CI 47.&nbsp; These amendments
were made to ensure that order 1 rule 1 (2) of the rules that set out the
objectives of CI 47 is achieved.&nbsp; Order 1
rule 1 (2) provides: <o:p></o:p>"These Rules shall be
interpreted and applied so as to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; achieve
speedy and effective justice, avoid delays and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; unnecessary
expense and ensure that all matters in dispute between
the parties may be completely, effectively and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; finally
determined and multiplicity of proceedings &nbsp;&nbsp; concerning
any of such matters avoided".<o:p></o:p>Clearly,
CI 87 did not amend Order 16 rule 5 (1) (b) of CI 47.&nbsp; CI 87 regulates specific issues dealing with
case management in general while Order 16 rule 5 (1) (b) of CI 47
specifically&nbsp; regulates the amendment of
a party's pleadings.&nbsp; Amendment of
pleadings runs through the lifespan of a case.&nbsp;
Pleadings could be amended&nbsp; before
the summons for direction stage.&nbsp; It
could also be done in the cause of the hearing of the case.&nbsp; It could even be amended if the Applicant is
prohibited by any statute of limitation.&nbsp;
See Order 16 rule 5 (2) of CI 47.&nbsp;
If the framers of CI 87 wanted to restrict the period within which
pleadings could be amended they would have done so.&nbsp; The enactment of CI 87 has not impliedly
amended Order 16 rule 5 (1) (b) of CI 47,&nbsp;
as the subject matter of the respective provisions are substantially
different.&nbsp; Both laws are not of the same
character for the latter (CI 87) to be deemed to have amended the earl</main>