JIBRIL MAHAMA v. AKWASI MENSAH

TORKORNOO, (MRS.) JSC:-

The Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant (Plaintiff) is contesting the leave granted by the High Court to the Defendant/Respondent/Respondent (Defendant) to amend his defence to the Plaintiff’s action. In his Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff had averred in his paragraph 4 that

4. Plaintiff avers that it was a term of the sale and purchase agreement he entered into with defendant that he was to pay GH₵40,000 to the defendant whilst the remaining balance of GH₵30,000 ‘shall be paid after the transfer’ of the necessary land documents’

In his original defence to the Plaintiff’s claims, the Defendant had denied all averments in the Statement of Claim and pleaded in Paragraph 4 of his Statement of Defence that

4. In further denial, the defendant will contend that the said plot of land was to be sold to the plaintiff for Gh₵70,000 and the plaintiff paid GH₵40,000 leaving a balance of 30,000 to be paid after the transfer of the document thereof’

The Plaintiff applied for judgment on admissions pursuant to Order 23 rule 6(1) and Order 11 rule 18 (1) (a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 CI 47 on the basis of this Paragraph 4. Before the Plaintiff’s application for judgment could be heard, the Defendant filed an Amended Defence and opposed the application for judgment on admissions. This amended Defence was struck out on account of failure to seek leave prior to filing same.

Thereafter, the Defendant applied to the High Court for leave to amend his Defence. The Plaintiff opposed the hearing of this application for leave to amend the Defence before the hearing of his application for judgment on admissions on the principal ground that the application was incompetent on account of seeking to defeat his prior application for judgment on admissions..

The court heard the Defendant’s application for leave to amend his Defence first, granted same, and the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal to set aside the order granting Defendant leave to amend his defence. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, leading to the present appeal on the following grounds:

The judgment is against weight of evidence

The court of appeal erred in law by affirming the ruling of the high court granting leave to defendant to amend his pleading, even though the court agreed with plaintiff about the defendant’s motion on notice to amend was ‘well-founded’, thereby rendering moot, plaintiff’s first in time application for judgment on admission