HASNEM ENTERPRISE LTD. v. ELECTRICITY CORPORATION OF GHANA
1990
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BENIN J
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
1990
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract and negligence following electrical damage in their office due to a cable fault. They sought multiple amendments to their claim to reflect increased damages and additional losses, which the court ultimately rejected as the amendments were not reflected in the statement of claim. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence or breach of contract by the defendants and did not sufficiently demonstrate the damages. The court also held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply as the causes of the accident were known. Consequently, the court dismissed both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendants' counterclaim for overloading without awarding costs.
JUDGMENT OF BENIN J.
The plaintiffs claim against the defendants "the sum of ¢175,771.50 being general damages for breach of contract for the supply of electricity and/or alternatively for negligence and/or nuisance." This is contained in the indorsement on the writ of summons filed on 5 May 1982. The plaintiffs filed a statement of claim on 2 July 1982.
The indorsement on the writ was first amended with leave granted on 26 October 1983, and secondly, with leave granted on 24 June 1985. The writ as finally amended reads as follows: "The plaintiffs' claim against the defendants is for general and special damages for breach of contract for the supply of electricity and/or alternatively for negligence and/or nuisance." The statement of claim was never sought to be amended to reflect the amended writ.
The hearing was concluded and the matter set down for addresses on 4 April 1990. On 3 April 1990 the plaintiffs put in an application on notice to amend the writ of summons for yet a third time. There is no limit to the number of times a party can seek to amend his writ or pleadings. I heard arguments on the proposed amendment but reserved the ruling to be embodied in the final judgment, which I now proceed to deliver.
What is the proposed amendment seeking? The plaintiffs by their [p.255] claim are saying that as a result of the negligence of the defendants a fault developed on an underground cable resulting in damage to certain electronic gadgets or appliances of theirs. They have therefore sued for general and special damages. They put in the value of the items damaged as at the date of the incident. The amendment seeks to put an increased value on the damaged items, that is their current value as counsel said in his argument. Next, the amendment sought to claim loss of prospective income, loss of use and inconvenience, as well as interest.
Arguing for the acceptance of the proposed amendments, counsel for the plaintiff-applicants said they were coming under Order 28, r. 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A.). He cited for his authority the decision in Baah Ltd. v. Saleh Brothers [1971] 1 G.L.R. 119 at 124 where the court said it could entertain an application to amend even at a stage when judgment had been reserved. Counsel explained there was no need for an affidavit in support.
Counsel for the defendants opposed the application on the grounds that (i) there must be an affidavit to explain the delay in bringing the applicati