MICRO MOBILE LINKS LIMITED v. MILLICOM GHANA COMPANY LIMITED

In this Ghana High Court ruling, Dr. Richmond Osei-Hwere determined a preliminary objection by the plaintiff/respondent to the defendant/applicant’s motion to amend its statement of defence and add a counterclaim. The respondent argued the motion was incompetent because it failed to “specify precisely” the nature of the amendment as mandated by Order 16 rule 11(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47). The applicant answered that the annexed proposed amended defence embodied the changes, and alternatively, any defect was curable under Order 81. The court examined the affidavit and annexures, the text of Order 16 rule 11, persuasive Indian authorities on amendment practice (Gurdial Singh v Raj Kumar Aneja; Kedar Nath v Ram Parkash), and Ghanaian precedent endorsing use of Commonwealth jurisprudence (Fodwoo v Law Chambers & Co., referencing Kitchen v RAFA). Concluding that the application did not identify the additions and deletions and that non-compliance goes to jurisdiction (Ayikai v Okaidja III), the court upheld the objection and struck out the motion as incompetent.