DELICO ACHIMOTA GHANA LTD vs. X-BASE LIMITED & ORS. [2020]DLHC10385

Date	2020-02-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: GJ/1196/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10385

HER LADYSHIP ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH

YVONNE AKUFFO-ADDO HOLDING BRIEF FOR KWAME AKUFFO FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT – PRESENT

YAW ADJEI A. NKETIAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS – ABSENT

[2020]DLHC10385
																																						<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" >DELICO ACHIMOTA GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>X-BASE LIMITED &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:
Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:EN;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO.: GJ/1196/2019&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; DATE:
<span lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:
EN;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">13TH FEBRUARY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YVONNE AKUFFO-ADDO HOLDING BRIEF FOR KWAME AKUFFO
FOR<o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT – PRESENT<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;">

YAW
ADJEI A. NKETIAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS – ABSENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This is a ruling pursuant to
motion filed on the 7th February, 2020 seeking an order for the
variation of the order of the court dated 30th July, 2019. The court
has considered the submissions of counsel for the applicant. The court notes
that on the authority of Amoakom vs
Hanson 1987/88 GLR there is no Bar to the court considering this
application. It is a matter or record that counsel for the defendants has been
duly served and has not filed an affidavit in opposition. Though the position
of the law on the authority of Bonsu vs
Eyifah 2001/02 GLR does not give automatic assurance to an applicant in
this state of affairs, the mere fact that the defendant is deemed to be
practicing in a firm ordinarily and no one has attended court from that firm,
the court takes the view that it may therefore rule on the application for
variation. The principle which has been cited in cases such as Van Wyk vs Van Wyk 1954(4) SA 594 is
clear that the grant of a variation order is not automatic. However, a court is
mandated to grant such an application where it is satisfied that there has been
such a change in the conditions that existed when the order was made and that
it will be unfair that the order given the conditions should continue in its
original form.<o:p></o:p>Application filed on 7th
February, 2020 is hereby granted as prayed that varying the court order for
appointment of referee dated 30th July, 2019 for academic
completeness on the authority of Zakari
vs Ndum 1968 GLR. The court is mindful
of the comments of Edusei J in respect of the ability of a court to review
decisions. Thankfully the substantive order was issued by this court presently
constituted and therefore the court has jurisdiction to make the review so
granted.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;</main>