ANBARIYA ISLAMIC INSTITUTE vs DR. OSMAN ALHASSAN [2023]DLCA16183

Date	2023-07-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/66/2023
Citation No.	[2023]DLCA16183

G. S. SUURBAARE J.A. (PRESIDING)

ERIC BAAH J.A

HAFISATA AMELEBOBA J.A

MOHAMMED ALHASSAN

AFOKO AMOAKO

[2023]DLCA16183
																																						<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" >ANBARIYA ISLAMIC INSTITUTE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs<o:p></o:p>DR. OSMAN ALHASSAN<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<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;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/66/2023&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 20TH JULY, 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MOHAMMED ALHASSAN FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<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;">

AFOKO AMOAKO FOR
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>G.
S. SUURBAAREH J.A. (PRESIDING)<o:p></o:p>ERIC
BAAH J.A,<o:p></o:p>HAFISATA
AMELEBOBA J.A,<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;SUURBAAREH, JA<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court, Tamale, dated 9th
October, 2020, which granted the defendant/respondent’s application to amend
his statement of defence, after applications for directions had been taken and
the parties directed to file their witness statements. <o:p></o:p>The
appeal, which is against the whole ruling, and seeking to have same set aside,
has been mounted on two grounds of appeal to wit:<o:p></o:p>1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The ruling is against the weight of the evidence;<o:p></o:p>2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The order granting the defendant/respondent leave to
amend his Statement of Defence is a wrong exercise of discretion by the trial
Court.<o:p></o:p>Henceforth
the parties will be called plaintiff and defendant. <o:p></o:p>In
the written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff, after setting out the
processes leading to ruling and resulting in this appeal, especially the facts
deposed to in the affidavits for and against the application to amend, went on
to tackle the ground about the judgment being against the weight of evidence.
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff began by referring to cases, including Akuffo Addo vrs Catherine (1992) GLR 377 SC,
and Bakana Ltd. Vrs Osei (2014) 77 GMJ 8
at 76, on the duty of an appellate Court when an appeal is based on the
omnibus ground of appeal about the judgment being against the weight of the
evidence.<o:p></o:p>It is
the view of this Court that the inclusion of the omnibus ground of appeal in
this case is inappropriate. We admit that the trial Court had to look at the
depositions contained in the various affidavits filed in the matter in coming
to a decision as to how to exercise the discretion placed on it. Again,
although these depositions are made on oath, not having been subjected to the
litmus test of cross-examination, cannot be said to constitute evidence which
the trial Court had to evaluate in coming to a decision on the
application.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>There
are a plethora of decisions of the apex Court which are to the effect that the
omnibus ground of appeal is appropriate where evidence has been led before the
trial Court which it was bound to evaluate in coming to a decision. In Zikpuitor Akpatsu Fenu &amp; Ors Vrs Attorney
General &amp; Ors (2019) 130 GMJ 179 at 192 Anin Yeboah JSC (as he then was) said:<o:p></o:p>“The omnibus ground is usually common in
cases in which evidence was led and the trial Court was enjoined to evaluate
the evidence on record and make its findings of fact in appropriate cases. In
cases in which no evidence was led but the order which had been appealed is
interlocutory, such grounds of appeal are not canvassed at all. This has been
settled long ago by this Court in three notable cases: Asamoah Vrs Marfo (2011) 2 SCGLR 832; Republic Vrs Conduah; Ex parte
Aaba (Subst. Asmah((2013-2014) SCGLR 1032; and In Re: Suhyen Stool; Wiredu and Obenewaa Vrs Agyei &amp; Ors
(2005-2006) SCGLR 422”.<o:p></o:p>In Re Suhyen Stool case (Supra), the Court
lamented the practice of throwing in the omnibus ground as a backup in a cases
where there was very little difference in the evidence. In Asamoah Vrs Marfo (Supra), it was in respect of a default judgment.
In Atugubah &amp; Associates Vrs Scipion
Capital (UK) Ltd. &amp; Holman Fenwick Wilham LLP (2017-2020) 2 SCGLR 196, the
Court, by way of obiter, after reference to decided cases, lamented the
worrying phenomenon of parties and Counsel throwing in the omnibus ground of
appeal without regard to earlier guidelines set out. In the instant case, we
are of the considered view that the omnibus ground of appeal is clearly
misconceived and is hereby struck out.<o:p></o:p>In
arguing the ground about the trial Court having wrongly exercised its
discretion to grant the application to amend, learned Counsel conceded from the
onset that the grant or refusal of leave to amend involves the exercise of
discretion by the trial Court, and further that the purpose of amendment is to
ensure that the</main>