GHANA GROWTH FUND LIMITED vs MARIPOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED & ORS
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU, J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns a motion by the defendants to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delays, confusion, and surprise. The court examined the arguments and found that the proposed amendments were related to the original agreement between the parties. The court cited Order 16 rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, which allows amendments even if they introduce new causes of action, provided they arise from substantially the same facts. The court determined that granting the amendment would prevent multiple lawsuits and promote judicial economy. It also noted that amendments could be made at any stage of proceedings. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' application to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim, ordering costs of GH¢600.00 to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
The motion before the court seeks an order of the court to amend the statement of defence and counterclaim filed by the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd defendants.
Attached to the motion paper are an affidavit and a proposed amended statement of defence and counterclaim.
The plaintiff is opposed to the application and has deposed in its affidavit in opposition, among others, at paragraphs 6 to 10 that: 6. That Pleadings have closed and Plaintiff has filled its witness statement.
7. That the current application if granted will defeat the ends of justice and will further delay proceedings owning to the fact that it is vexatious confusing and seeks to reopen the Defendants case.
8. That the proposed amendments will surprise the Plaintiff as it has shown its full hands already to the Defendants on the orders of this Honourable Court.
9. That Defendants have not pleaded any new facts but facts and law which has always existed and if that was their case, ought to have pleaded it.
10. That if allowed it will mark a complete departure of their Defendants case and completely surprise the Plaintiff.
11. That Defendants have participated fully in this matter having filed appearance, defence and counter claim as well as late additional issues and have therefore had every opportunity to state their case.
It is thus clear from the deposition above that the main reasons for the plaintiff’s opposition to the applicant’s motion is because in the view of the plaintiff, the application if granted will defeat the ends of justice and confuse the issues before the court.
Again the respondent says that the application has the potential to surprise the plaintiff because the plaintiff had already laid bare its case to the defendants.
The respondent also says that the amendment sought pleads no new facts and that the matters therein have always been known to the applicants.
The respondent again says that if the application is allowed it will mark a complete departure from the case of the applicants and therefore surprise the respondents.
It seems to the court that paragraph 9 of the affidavit in opposition runs contrary to the deposition in paragraph 10 of the same affidavit.
This is so because at paragraph 9 of the affidavit the respondent says that the defendants/applicants have pleaded no new facts but “facts and law which have always existed”, yet the respondent at the same time says in paragraph 10 that if the application is“allowed it will mark a complete departure of