Arla Foods Limited Vrs Dynasty Commercials Company Limited [2023] GHAHC 303 (26 October 2023)
The parties failed to comply with the court's order to file pre-trial checklists, witness statements, and documents within the stipulated time. The court held that time limits are crucial for the administration of justice and invoked Rule 1(3) of C.I. 87 to strike out the case for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] GHAHC 303
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Arla Foods Limited; Defendant: Dynasty Commercials Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Ghana
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial / Ruling on Compliance With Pre Trial Orders
- Outcome
- Suit struck out for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out for Want of Prosecution, Pre Trial Procedure, Time Limits in Litigation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Arla Foods Limited
Plaintiff
Dynasty Commercials Company Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Ruling on Compliance With Pre Trial Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether failure to comply with court-ordered timelines warrants striking out the suit for want of prosecution
Ratio Decidendi
The parties failed to comply with the court's order to file pre-trial checklists, witness statements, and documents within the stipulated time. The court held that time limits are crucial for the administration of justice and invoked Rule 1(3) of C.I. 87 to strike out the case for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
Suit struck out for want of prosecution
Orders
- Case struck out under Rule 1(3) of C.I. 87
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, COMMERCIAL DIVISION, HELD IN ACCRA ON THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0434/2022 ARLA FOODS LIMITED - PLAINTIFF Vs DYNASTY COMMERCIALS COMPANY LIMITED - DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RULING --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 26th July 2023, the court ordered the parties to file their pre-trial checklists, witness statements and all documents they intend to rely upon in the case within 21 days. The parties have failed to comply with the Order of the court as at today, 26th October, 2023. It is trite law, that time limits in court processes are too important for one to ignore. They are meant to prevent delays by keeping the wheels of justice rolling smoothly. If this were not so, parties would initiate actions in court and thereafter go to sleep only to wake up at their own appointed time to continue with such litigation at their pleasure. If this were allowed, litigation could grind to a halt, a sure recipe for confusion and inordinate delays in the due and proper administration of justice. See: OPPONG v ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS [2000] SCGLR 275 Orders setting time limits are to ensure certainty and procedural integrity in the administration of justice. I therefore cannot craft any rule to aid the parties, nor will the end of justice be served if any attempt is made to do so. See: DOKU v PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF GHANA [2005-2006] SCGLR 700 I will therefore invoke Rule 1 (3) of C. I 87 and strike out the case for want of prosecution. SGD. FRANCIS OBIRI JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT COUNSEL PEGGY BOADI FOR SHADRACK ARHIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT ABSENT AUTHORITIES 1. OPPONG v ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS [2000] SCGLR 275 2. DOKU v PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF GHANA [2005-2006] SCGLR 700 2