Mahama Vrs Mensah [2020] GHASC 58 (4 November 2020)

Mahama Vrs Mensah [2020] GHASC 58 (4 November 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion 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 reliefs sought required evidence and could not be granted on admissions alone. The appeal was dismissed as neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal erred in their decisions.

Citation
[2020] GHASC 58
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Jibril Mahama; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Akwasi Mensah
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
4 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final 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 Final 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 the defence despite a pending application for judgment on admissions
  2. 2 Whether the application for judgment on admissions was competent given the reliefs sought

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion 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 reliefs sought required evidence and could not be granted on admissions alone. The appeal was dismissed as neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal erred in their decisions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed