Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
July 25, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
By the rules of court, a party may, without leave of court, amend any of the party’s pleadings once at any time before pleadings are closed. The rules also provide that, where the amendment is made without leave, within fourteen (14) days after the service on a party of a pleading amended without leave, the party may apply to the court to strike out the amendment. See: Order 16 rules 3(1) and 4(1).
Also, in the celebrated case of YEBOA AND ANOTHER v. BOFOUR [1971] 2 GLR 199, the Court of Appeal decisively and indelibly circumscribed the legal contours and guiding principles (or ‘litmus test’) for deciding whether or not an application for an Amendment of a process may be granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
In Holdings (7) and (8) of the said locus classicus on Amendment, quoted ad longum hereunder, the Court speaking through Azu Crabbe JSC (as he then was) stated -
“(7) An application for an amendment (which is governed by Order 28 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140)) may be made as soon as the necessity arises, and as a general rule the court will allow an amendment even up to the last moment, provided that (i) no surprise results, (ii) it does not enable a party to set up an entirely new case or to change completely the nature of his case, (iii) it is not sought to add new parties, (iv) it will not do any injury to the opponent's case or prejudice him in some way which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise, (v) the application be made bona fide and (vi) the proposed amendment will not cause undue delay or is irrelevant or useless or would merely raise a technical point. However a court will not grant leave to amend the pleadings after final decree or entry of judgment. Attorney-General v. Corporation of Birmingham (1880) 15 Ch.D. 423, C.A. cited.
(8) The granting or refusal of an application for leave to amend pleadings, even at the last moment in the proceedings, is a matter entirely within the discretion of the trial judge. And the discretion to allow an amendment will be exercised in order that the real issues between the parties may be finally determined. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is satisfied that the judge applied a wrong principle or can be said to have reached a conclusion, which would work a manifest injustice between parties. In this case the trial judge exercised his discretion properly in allowing the plaintiff to amend his
AI Generated Summary
Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni of the Ghana High Court ruled on a motion challenging an amendment to pleadings. The Defendant sought to strike out an amended writ of summons and statement of claim, but the court emphasized the governing rules of civil procedure and the Court of Appeal’s authoritative guidance in YEBOA AND ANOTHER v. BOFOUR [1971] 2 GLR 199. Citing Order 16 rules 3(1) and 4(1) and the Yeboah holdings, the judge reiterated that parties may amend pleadings without leave once before close of pleadings, and that amendments, even at the last moment, are permitted where they are bona fide, cause no surprise or irremediable prejudice, and facilitate determination of the real issues. After reviewing the affidavits and written submissions, the court found the Plaintiff’s amendment was filed ex debito justitiae within time and would expedite effective and final adjudication. Accordingly, the motion to strike was dismissed as not maintainable; no costs were awarded, and the suit was directed to proceed in the normal and ultimate course.