REGINALD YEMO ODOI & ANR. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GOLD COAST FUND MANAGEMENT. (DEFENDANT) [2019]DLHC7137

REGINALD YEMO ODOI & ANR. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GOLD COAST FUND MANAGEMENT. (DEFENDAN... [2019]DLHC7137

Date	2019-07-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CM/RPC/0070/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7137

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

BERNARD N. AGORTEY ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.

FREDERICK BOAMAH ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.

[2019]DLHC7137
																																						<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" >REGINALD YEMO ODOI &amp;
ANR.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GOLD COAST FUND
MANAGEMENT.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<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: CM/RPC/0070/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 25TH JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>BERNARD N. AGORTEY ESQ.,
FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.<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">

FREDERICK
BOAMAH ESQ., FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, J.<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 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
instant application seeks leave of the court to amend the statement of defence filed
on behalf of the defendant on the 15th January 2019. This
application to amend was filed after the plaintiff herein had filed an
application on the 15th May 2019 for an order of the court to strike
out
the defence filed by the defendant for being frivolous,
scandalous and vexatious.<o:p></o:p>Order
16 rules 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47 which was
cited by the applicant provides that:<o:p></o:p>(5)&nbsp;&nbsp;An amendment may be allowed under
sub rule (2) notwithstanding that the effect of the amendment will be to add or
substitute a new cause of action, if the new cause of action arises out of the
same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action in respect of
which relief has already been claimed in the action by the party applying for
leave to make the amendment.<o:p></o:p>What
this rule implies is that in order for the court to grant an amendment to add
to or to substitute a new cause of action for the one filed by a party it must
be shown that the original process filed discloses a cause of action. That is,
a cause of action must exist before one could talk about or contemplate adding
to it or substituting a fresh one for it. Thus, where the original process does
not disclose a cause of action, a party cannot by the process of amendment get
a cause of action before the court. <o:p></o:p>This
point was made by the Court of Appeal in the case of DEEGBE v. NSIAH AND ANOTHER [1984-86] 1 GLR 545, in which the
plaintiff’s writ of summons disclosed no cause of action as a result of which
he filed an application before the Court to amend in order to introduce a cause
of action. The application was dismissed and on appeal to the Court of Appeal,
the court ruled that:<o:p></o:p>Where the writ or the statement of claim disclosed
in toto no cause of action there could not be granted an amendment so as to
disclose a cause of action.<o:p></o:p>In
the light of the above therefore, this court is of the opinion that the motion
for leave to amend the defence filed is brought with the main aim of disclosing
a defence and considering that the plaintiff has brought an application to
dismiss or strike out the defence already on the docket, this court does not
think that the application is brought bona fides. The application is therefore
dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>