ORBIT GARANT DRILLING GHANA LTD VS FGR BOGOSO PRESTEA LIMITED

I preface this Ruling with the definition given a technicality by the respected Nigerian Jurist Tobi JSC as I believe same to be of persuasive value in this jurisdiction;

‘A technicality in a matter could arise if a party is relying on abstract or inordinate legalism to becloud or drown the merits of a case. A technicality arises if a party quickly takes an immediately available opportunity however infinitesimal it may be to work against the merits of the opponent’s case. In other words, he holds and relies tenaciously unto the rules of Court with little no regard to the injustice that will be caused the opponent. As far as he is concerned the rules must be followed to the last sentences, the last words and the last letters without much ado and with little regard to the justice of the matter.”

Per Niki Tobi JSC in the case of Yusuf v Adegoke (2007) 4 SC (Pt.1) 126

The Present Application filed by the Defendant/Respondent (Defendant) seeks an Order of this Court setting aside the Plaintiff/ Respondent’s (Plaintiff) action for non-compliance with the Rules of this Court. The Motion does not state the specific Rule upon which the instant Application is premised. This is unfortunate as this practice disregards the convenience of the Court and makes its work unnecessarily tedious.

This point is emphasized by the Court of Appeal in the case of SHEIK YAHAYA v SUMMA HOLDING CORPORATION [2005] GHACA 19 (15 JULY 2005). Where Anin Yeboah JA (as he then was) said:

“... In my respectful opinion, to avoid laxity in practice and make proceedings clear, an applicant must indicate the rule upon which he has mounted an application and if he is invoking the court’s inherent jurisdiction or both, same must be so stated to avoid the situation whereby judges have to explore the rules to ascertain the relevant rule under which the motion is brought...”

It is not uncommon for lawyers, relying on cases such as SHARDEY ADAMTEY AND SHARDEY v MARTEY & ANOR [1972] 2 GLR 380 and the more recent case of ENVIRONS SOLUTIONS THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) EX PARTE ENVIRONS SOLUTIONS & ORS (J/5/20/2019) [2020] GHASC 17 (29 APRIL 2020), to argue that a failure to do so is not fatal. That may be the case but it does not change the fact that this practice disregards the convenience of the Court and should be discouraged.

Now, since the Defendant seeks to set aside the Plaintiff’s action for non-compliance, I shall proceed on the premise that the instant Application is