UNIVERSAL CO-OPERATIVE COMMODITIES LTD & OTHERS vs. BOB COMMODITIES CO. LTD (DEFENDANTS) [2018]DLHC9932

UNIVERSAL CO-OPERATIVE COMMODITIES LTD & OTHERS vs. BOB COMMODITIES CO. LTD (DEF... [2018]DLHC9932

Date	2018-04-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 05/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9932

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

KWAME ANTWI AFRIYIE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

EDWIN ANNAN FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[2018]DLHC9932
																																						<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<o:p></o:p>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><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
24TH APRIL, 2018<o:p></o:p>

<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="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This
is a motion on notice praying this Honourable 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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&nbsp; of defence in the face of the requirements of
CI &nbsp;&nbsp; 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "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>