PAA SOLO COMPANY LIMITED vs. NAJA DAVID VENEER & PLYWOOD AND ANOTHER [2019]DLHC6892

Date	2019-06-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO: OCC 33/2017
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6892

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

KWAME ADOM APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC6892
																																						<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" >PAA SOLO
COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NAJA DAVID
VENEER &amp; PLYWOOD AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[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
NO: OCC 33/2017&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;DATE: 21ST
JUNE, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<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">

KWAME
ADOM APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR.
RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE<o:p></o:p>

</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">

</div>Order
1 rule 1(2)of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) provides: <o:p></o:p>“These Rules shall be interpreted and
applied so as to achieve speedy and effective justice, avoid delays and
unnecessary expense and ensure that all matters in dispute between the parties may
be completely, effectively and finally determined and multiplicity of
proceedings concerning any of such matters avoided.”<o:p></o:p>Order
58 rule 3 (2) of CI 47 also provides:<o:p></o:p>“An application for summary judgment
or judgment on admissions shall not be filed until after the pre-trial
settlement conference.”<o:p></o:p>In
this application for judgment on admission, counsel for the applicant is
inviting the court to enter judgment in favour of the applicant based on admissions
made by the defendants/respondents in their statement of defence. Counsel
acknowledges that the case has not gone through the pre-trial settlement
conference which per Order 58 rule 3(2) is a prerequisite to the application.
Counsel, however, submits that in the light of the admission no useful purpose
will be served if the case goes through the pretrial settlement session. That,
such a move will unnecessarily delay the determination of the case. He submits
that the court can apply Order 1 rule 1(2) of CI 47 and grant the application
although the condition contained in Order 58 rule 3 has not been satisfied.<o:p></o:p>Order
1 rule 1(2) sets out the purpose of the rules of court. It is meant to achieve
speedy, just and inexpensive resolution of disputes devoid of multiplicity of
actions. This is a general provision which is applied in the interpretation of
the civil procedure rules.<o:p></o:p>Order
58 of CI 47 contain special rules that guide the operations of the Commercial Court.
Order 58 incorporates court oriented Alternative Dispute Resolution as part of
the adjudicating process of the Commercial Court. By Order 58 rule 3(2) parties
in suits before the Court are not allowed to apply for summary judgment or
judgment on admissions, until after the pre-trial settlement conference. Order
58 rule 3 (2) is a specific provision as against Order 1 rule 1 (2) which is a
general provision.<o:p></o:p>The
law is that when a specific provision conflicts with a general provision in the
same enactment, the specific provision prevails. For an application of this
rule, see: Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex arte PPE &amp; Juric(Unique Trust
Financial Services Ltd(Interested Party) and In Re Parliamentary Election for
Wulensi Constituency; Zakaria v Nyimakan (2003-2004) SCGLR 1. In the instant
case, Order 58 rule 3(2) has not impliedly repealed Order 1 rule 1(2). However,
since the application of both lead to conflict of some sort Order 58 rule 3(2)
overrides Order 1 rule 1(2) in the instant case.<o:p></o:p>Order
1 rule 1 (2) is meant to promote speedy and effective justice but not designed
to encourage the disobedience of mandatory procedural requirements especially
if they touch on the jurisdiction of the court. Such disobedience cannot be
treated as a mere irregularity which can be cured by the combined effect of
Order 1 rule 1 (2) and Order 81 rule 1 of CI 47 which confers a wide discretion
on the court to rectify irregularities. <o:p></o:p>The
pretrial settlement conference at the Commercial Court is so fundamental that
it clothes the court with the jurisdiction to hear an application for judgment
on admission only if the parties have participated in the pretrial session and
the matter has been remitted for full trial. Non-compliance with this
fundamental rule as dictated by Order 58 rule 3 (2) will render any subsequent
procedure which begets judgment on admissions null and void. In that regard, the
accommodating effect of Order 81 cannot save the situation. In the case of
Republic v High Court, Accra Ex parte Allgate Co. Ltd (Amalgamated Bank Ltd)
[2007-2008] SCGLR 1041, the Supreme Court per Dr. Date–Bah JSC made a
pronouncement on Order 81 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, CI 47 as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“To summarise then, where there has
been non-compliance with any of the rules contained in the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47), such non-compliance is to be regarded as an
irregularity that does not result in a nullity,</main>