June 24, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This interlocutory appeal from the Ghana Court of Appeal concerns the High Court’s refusal to permit the plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim in a land dispute in Tamale. The plaintiff originally traced title to a fifty-year lease granted by the Lands Commission, Tamale, in 1997, and alleged fencing and office block development on the land. The defendants asserted prior use by the defunct Bast Fibre Development Board and vesting in the Lamashegu skin. After portions of the plaintiff’s witness statement were expunged because those facts were not pleaded, the plaintiff sought to amend to include the Bast Fibre/liquidator narrative and renovation particulars. Applying Order 1 rule 2’s overriding objective and authorities defining “cause of action,” the Court of Appeal held the amendments merely amplified the existing claim rather than introducing a new cause, found no irremediable prejudice or surprise to the defendant (with costs and adjournment available), and allowed the amendment, ordering the revised Statement of Claim to be filed within one month. Two Justices concurred.
S. R. BERNASKO ESSAH (MRS.), J.A.
This is an interlocutory appeal filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant, against a decision of the High Court dated 31st May 2021, refusing to grant an amendment to the Statement of Claim.
The background to the appeal may be summarized as follows:
The Plaintiff took out a Writ and accompanying Statement of Claim seeking certain reliefs against the Defendant as per endorsement on the Writ of Summons in respect of a piece of land subject matter of the dispute. In their Statement of Claim, they had traced their title to a lease granted them by the Lands Commission Tamale on the 18th of July 1997. In their Statement of Defence, the Defendants averred in paragraphs 12 and 13 that a defunct Board known as Bast Fibre Development Board had used the land in dispute and maintained a structure on part of the land which had been used as offices. They averred that it was the land left by the defunct board which became vested in the Lamashegu skin that was purportedly allocated or granted to the Plaintiff by the Lands Commission, and the dilapidated structure left by the defunct board is what the Plaintiff is seeking to renovate.
They repeated these averments in their Counterclaim. In Reply to the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, Plaintiff averred that they started occupying the disputed property from 1992 when it had a bumper harvest of cotton and the Ministry of Agriculture gave the property to them to use as storage premises. That whiles occupying the property, same was advertised for sale by the Official Liquidator of erstwhile Bast Fibre Development Board. They offered to purchase it and the liquidator having accepted the Plaintiff’s offer, Plaintiff made payment for the disputed property. The Liquidator then wrote to the Regional Lands Officer at Tamale to prepare transfer documents to the defendant.
In the witness Statement of Thomas Azong on behalf of the Plaintiff, these averments in respect of the Bast Fibre Board, were repeated in paragraphs 6 to 13 of the Plaintiff’s Witness Statement. During case management conference, upon objection to those paragraphs raised by counsel for defendant, the court upheld the objection and expunged paragraphs 6 to 13 of the Witness Statement. The objections to the development on the land were however overruled.
In order to have the expunged paragraphs in the Witness Statement included in the Statement of Claim the Plaintiff applied to amend its Statement of Claim. In its affidavit in supp