PAA SOLO COMPANY LIMITED v. NAJA DAVID VENEER & PLYWOOD & ANOR
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Alternative dispute resolution
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a Commercial Court ruling authored by HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE, the court dismissed an application for judgment on admissions that had been filed before the mandatory pre-trial settlement conference required under Order 58 rule 3(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47). The applicant’s counsel argued that Order 1 rule 1(2), which seeks speedy and effective justice, should permit the court to bypass the pretrial step given clear admissions in the defendants/respondents’ statement of defence. The court held that Order 58’s specific requirement, which integrates court-oriented ADR, prevails over the general interpretive directive of Order 1, and that compliance is jurisdictional. Citing Republic v High Court, Accra Ex parte Allgate Co. Ltd and earlier Supreme Court authorities, the court concluded Order 81 cannot cure non-compliance that goes to jurisdiction. The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
RULING
Order 1 rule 1(2)of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) provides:
“These Rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to achieve speedy and effective justice, avoid delays and unnecessary expense and ensure that all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely, effectively and finally determined and multiplicity of proceedings concerning any of such matters avoided.”
Order 58 rule 3 (2) of CI 47 also provides:
“An application for summary judgment or judgment on admissions shall not be filed until after the pre-trial settlement conference.”
In this application for judgment on admission, counsel for the applicant is inviting the court to enter judgment in favour of the applicant based on admissions made by the defendants/respondents in their statement of defence. Counsel acknowledges that the case has not gone through the pre-trial settlement conference which per Order 58 rule 3(2) is a prerequisite to the application. Counsel, however, submits that in the light of the admission no useful purpose will be served if the case goes through the pretrial settlement session. That, such a move will unnecessarily delay the determination of the case. He submits that the court can apply Order 1 rule 1(2) of CI 47 and grant the application although the condition contained in Order 58 rule 3 has not been satisfied.
Order 1 rule 1(2) sets out the purpose of the rules of court. It is meant to achieve speedy, just and inexpensive resolution of disputes devoid of multiplicity of actions. This is a general provision which is applied in the interpretation of the civil procedure rules.
Order 58 of CI 47 contain special rules that guide the operations of the Commercial Court. Order 58 incorporates court oriented Alternative Dispute Resolution as part of the adjudicating process of the Commercial Court. By Order 58 rule 3(2) parties in suits before the Court are not allowed to apply for summary judgment or judgment on admissions, until after the pre-trial settlement conference. Order 58 rule 3 (2) is a specific provision as against Order 1 rule 1 (2) which is a general provision.
The law is that when a specific provision conflicts with a general provision in the same enactment, the specific provision prevails. For an application of this rule, see: Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex arte PPE & Juric(Unique Trust Financial Services Ltd(Interested Party) and In Re Parliamentary Election for Wulensi Constituency; Zakaria v Nyimakan (2003-2004