Try asking the following...
RULING
RULING ON PRELIMINARY LEGAL OBJECTION RAISED BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT IN RESPECT OF THE MOTION ON NOTICE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF’S WRIT OF SUMMONS AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM
After 1st Plaintiff filed a Motion on Notice to amend its Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on 6th February 2023, Counsel for Defendant filed a notice of preliminary legal objection on the basis that the application is incompetent in law and same should be dismissed in limine.
Although learned counsel for Defendant was ordered by the Court on 2nd March, 2023 to file his written submission in respect of the preliminary legal objection and serve same on 1st Plaintiff by 13th March 2023, the records indicate that it was not until 21st March, 2023 that he filed same and served same on 1st Plaintiff on 23rd March, 2023.
Counsel for 1st Plaintiff filed its response to Defendant’s preliminary legal objection on 28th March, 2023.
Careful consideration has been given to the written submissions of both Counsel in respect of the preliminary legal objection.
Although Defendant failed to comply with the Court order to file the written submission within the time frame given, in the interest of justice and fairness, the merit of the preliminary legal objection will be gone into by the Court.
The grounds for the said preliminary legal objection are that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain 1st Plaintiff’s application for amendment because the issue of the effective date of the interest on the judgment debt owed by Defendant to 1st Plaintiff had been determined by the Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 7th December, 2022; and is binding on this Court which is obliged to accept same by virtue of Article 129 (3) of the 1992 constitution.
That the remaining issues per the pleadings having been duly determined by this Court differently constituted and Defendant having gone into execution, there is currently no case pending before the Court for which the 1st Plaintiff could make the amendments being sought in the said application.
The Court is however not minded to sustain this preliminary legal objection.
This is because a look at the records indicate that the trial Court presided over by Mensah Homiah, J (as she then was) on 29th June, 2020 gave Judgment in respect of reliefs (iii) and (iv).
The said Judgment had nothing to do with reliefs (i) and (ii), the subject of the Summary Judgment then on appeal.
The Court therefore cannot be said to be functus officio in this matter in respect of r