MAHAMA VRS. MENSAH (J4/45/2019) [2020] GHASC 145 (4 November 2020)

MAHAMA VRS. MENSAH (J4/45/2019) [2020] GHASC 145 (4 November 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge exercised discretion properly in hearing and granting the application for leave to amend the defence before the application for judgment on admissions. The Plaintiff's application for judgment on admissions was incompetent as the pleadings did not support a liquidated claim, and declaratory reliefs require evidence. The appeal was dismissed as neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal erred in law or fact.

Citation
[2020] GHASC 145
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Jibril Mahama; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Akwasi Mensah
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
4 November 2020
Case Number
J4/45/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Judgment on Admissions, Declaratory Relief, Specific Performance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Contract Law Amendment of Pleadings Judgment on Admissions Declaratory Relief Specific Performance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jibril Mahama

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Akwasi Mensah

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the High Court's grant of leave to amend defence
  2. 2 Whether the application for judgment on admissions was competent given the pleadings
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge exercised discretion properly in hearing the amendment application first

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge exercised discretion properly in hearing and granting the application for leave to amend the defence before the application for judgment on admissions. The Plaintiff's application for judgment on admissions was incompetent as the pleadings did not support a liquidated claim, and declaratory reliefs require evidence. The appeal was dismissed as neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal erred in law or fact.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed