Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 13, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
At the hearing of the Plaintiffs’ Application for Directions filed on 5th October 2022, Counsel for the Defendants, who had filed no Additional Issues, prayed that Plaintiffs’ ISSUE (4) be set down as a preliminary issue for determination. The said ISSUE (4) reads:
“4. Whether or not Plaintiffs have the capacity to maintain this action in Court?”
Counsel for the Plaintiffs stoutly resisted the prayer to set down the said ISSUE (4) as a preliminary issue for determination and contended that, in the absence of Additional Issues, all of the Plaintiffs’ Issues be taken together for determination at trial in order to save time and other limited resources of the parties and the Court.
In response to the submissions of both Counsel, this Court deployed a two-pronged strategy to move the case smoothly towards trial. Firstly, there being no Additional Issues filed by Counsel for the Defendants, the Court set down the Issues filed by Counsel for the Plaintiffs on 5th October, 2022 (except ISSUES (8) and (9)) as Issues for trial; and directed both lawyers to file their Witness Statements and Pretrial Checklists on or before 30th November, 2022.
Secondly, in response to Counsel for the Defendants’ prayer to have ISSUE (4) determined in accordance with order 33 rule 5 as a preliminary Issue, and with the approbation of both lawyers, Counsel for the Defendants was directed to file a Written Submission within seven (7) days after the last day for the filing of Witness Statements and Pretrial Checklists by both lawyers (i.e. within seven (7) days after 30th November, 2022); and thereafter, Counsel for Plaintiffs to file his Response within seven (7) days upon receipt of Defendants’ Written Submission. Both lawyers were further directed to file hardcopies of their Written Submissions at the Registry of this Court and forward softcopies thereof in WORD format to the email address of the Recorder of the Court (HYPERLINK "mailto:landcourt11@gmail.com"landcourt11@gmail.com) for a Ruling to be delivered. Both Counsel have complied with the Orders of the Court.
The jurisdiction of the Court to set down preliminary issues for determination before trial can be invoked under Order 33 rules 3 and 5 of C.I.47 when the issues to be set down for preliminary determination have the potential effect of substantially disposing of the entire case without going through a full trial.
The Supreme Court, speaking in support of this assertion, in the case of FRIGO LTD v INFITCO CO LTD [20
AI Generated Summary
Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni of the Ghana High Court (Land Court Division) issued a pretrial ruling on case management and a request to decide Plaintiffs’ Issue (4)—their capacity to maintain the action—as a preliminary issue. The Defendants sought separate determination despite having filed no additional issues; Plaintiffs resisted and urged that all issues be tried together to conserve time and resources. The Court adopted a two‑pronged approach: it set Plaintiffs’ issues (except Issues 8 and 9) for trial and directed the filing of witness statements and pretrial checklists, while inviting written submissions on the preliminary point. Citing Order 33 rules 3 and 5 of C.I. 47, Supreme Court guidance in FRIGO v INFITCO, and Radstock, the Court held that capacity was not conveniently determinable in advance and would not substantially dispose of the case. The application to set Issue (4) down as a preliminary issue was refused, and the suit proceeded toward case management.