MISYL ENERGY LIMITED vs. RENAIZANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND DAVID TAY [2019]DLHC7551

Date	2019-06-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0329/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7551

JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

YVONNE AKUFFO-ADDO FOR KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT ELIKPLIME AGBAMAVA

[2019]DLHC7551
																																						<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" >MISYL
ENERGY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>RENAIZANCE HOLDINGS
LIMITED AND DAVID TAY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<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">

SUIT NO.
CM/RPC/0329/2019&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; &nbsp;DATE: 25TH 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

YVONNE AKUFFO-ADDO FOR KWAME BOAFO
AKUFFO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT ELIKPLIME AGBAMAVA<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="text-align:center;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>APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE WRIT
OF SUMMONS AND AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM - ORDER 16 OF CI 47<o:p></o:p>On the 18/2/19 the plaintiff applicant
herein filed the motion above for leave to amend its writ of summons and
Statement of Claim in the following manner<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
To
amend the name of the plaintiff to read MYSYL
ENERGY COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
To
amend the name of the 1st defendant to read RENAIZANCE OIL LIMITED <o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
To
insert a relief ‘d’ for An Order
specifying the time within which the judgment should be complied with. <o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
To
amend paragraph 1 of the Amended Statement of Claim to read: The Plaintiff is
an Oil marketing Company incorporated under the laws of Ghana with Tax Identification Number
(TIN):C0001325396.<o:p></o:p>The Applicant in arguing this motion
has basically said the application has been necessitated by inadvertent omissions
and that these omissions were not caused by an intent to prejudice the
defendant. Counsel goes on that the 2nd defendant is a director of
the present 1st defendant and is also director of the sought to be
added Renaizance Oil Limited and therefore the 2nd defendant knew
right from the outset [as he represented the intended Renaizance Oil Limited at
all material times], that there was a mistake and hence the 1st
defendant could say it had no relationship with the plaintiff. Arguing that the
two names are similar, counsel for the applicant says they can easily get mixed
up, adding that as between the parties there is no confusion as the defendants in
their statement of defense have stated that they have been wrongly sued. The
applicant further relies on Order 16 rule 6[2] for the new relief it seeks.<o:p></o:p>In opposing this application the defendant’s
respondents have argues that the plaintiffs name change is not necessary and a
waste of the courts time arguing that what the plaintiff seeks to do amounts
rather to a substitution. Defendants Respondents raise issue as to whether a
fresh Appearance ought to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;be
filed should the application be granted, reminding the court also that the
defendants have been put to great expense in trying to defend the action. The
defendants respondents depose in their affidavit in opposition that the
applicant having belatedly realized that it had commenced action against a
defendant against whom it has no cause of action, must withdraw the suit
against the wrong party and institute a fresh action against the right person
rather than seeking a substitution, reminding the court, again, that this will
be the third time the applicant is seeking to amend its writ.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I will first deal with the amendment relating to
the name of the 1st defendant. The present 1st defendant
is Renaizance Holdings Limited, the intended 1st defendant by this
application is Renaizance Oil Limited. There is to my mind some similarity in
name here. Consequently if the applicant says the former is a misnomer, it is
not too difficult to appreciate that situation, In any case the defendants have
helped the applicants case as regards the present 1st defendant, in
their statement of defense filed on 13/3/19 at paragraph 5 where they have
stated the 1st defendant has
no existing contract of sale or business dealings with the plaintiff.
Clearly therefore there was an issue with the 1st defendant righ</main>