CROCODILE MATCHETS (GH) LTD vs. ALEX OWARE ENTERPRISE LTD [2019]DLHC7671

Date	2019-05-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ 156/19
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7671

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU J.

PRINCE OPPONG BOAKYE HOLDING BRIEF FOR DAAD AKWESI FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

SAM WOOD FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC7671
																																						<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" >CROCODILE
MATCHETS (GH) LTD<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>ALEX OWARE ENTERPRISE LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT 4), 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: GJ 156/19&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
14TH MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PRINCE OPPONG BOAKYE HOLDING BRIEF FOR DAAD AKWESI FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <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">

SAM WOOD FOR
DEFENDANT/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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG
OWUSU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This is an application on notice by the
defendant/applicant (hereafter referred to as the defendant) for leave to amend
its Statement of Defence.&nbsp; The defendant
supported its application with an affidavit, which disclosed that upon
reflection it realized that it inadvertently omitted to plead some vital
documents relating to financial transactions with the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiff/respondent (hereafter referred to as
the plaintiff) filed an affidavit in opposition in which it vehemently opposed
the application.&nbsp;&nbsp; The application was
resisted on the ground that it seeks to overreach the Court’s order and also
provide a new factual background on which the defendant can introduce a whole
new set of documents to provide leverage for its case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Court ordered Counsel to file written
submissions. I shall summarize the submissions of counsel.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel for the defendant justified the
proposed amendment upon the following grounds:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (1)
that the defendant inadvertently omitted to plead some vital documents relating
to financial transactions with the plaintiff (2) that the amendment was
necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy
between the parties and also to avoid a multiplicity of suits.&nbsp; (3) It will also not cause any injustice to
the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel argued further that it is within the power
of the Court to grant an amendment even if the amendment would add to the
existing cause of action or substitute a new cause of action provided the
additional or new cause of action arises out of the same or substantially the
same facts as contained in the pleadings.&nbsp;&nbsp;
According to him the proposed amendment is an innocuous plea which should
form part of the reconciliation exercise by the Court appointed
accountant.&nbsp; It was his contention that an
application for amendment is an inalienable right of a party and not a blessing
or an act of grace from the Court provided no injustice is caused to the other
party.&nbsp; He urged the Court to grant the
application since it is in accordance with the letter and spirit of Order 16
rule 5 of C.I. 47.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For his part learned counsel for the plaintiff
prayed the Court to disallow the amendment on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
it has been brought to overreach the orders of the Court &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and brought in extreme bad faith.<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
proposed amendment relates to alleged facts which should have been within the
defendant’s knowledge at the time it filed its Statement of Defence and amended
Statement of Defence.<o:p></o:p>According to counsel if indeed the proposed
amendments were true the defendant would have referred to these figures when it
filed its defence and amended Statement of defence.&nbsp; This application according to him was only
filed when this Court refused to allow the defendant to introduce new documents
that were not before the Court.&nbsp;&nbsp; He
contended that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that it was not aware of
these facts when it filed its Statement of Defence and amended Statement of
Defence.<o:p></o:p>