COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH (H1/45/2022) [2022] GHACA 158 (28 July 2022)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL KUMASI AD 2022 CORAM: A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) J. A. PRESIDING A. B. POKU-ACHEAMPONG, J. A. S. K. A. ASIEDU, J. A. SUIT NO.: H1/45/2022 DATE: 28th JULY, 2022 1. COUNTY HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS /APPELLANTS 2. DR. YEBOAH VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH : PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T POKU-ACHEAMPONG, J. A.: This is an interlocutory appeal from the ruling of a Kumasi High Court dated 11th March 2021. The substantive action is a claim for professional negligence against the SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 Defendants/Appellants, a medical facility in Kumasi, by the Plaintiff who went through a caesarean section procedure at the facility and experienced health complications. For reasons of convenience the parties shall retain their original designations in this judgment. Thus the Plaintiff/Respondent shall be referred to as the Plaintiff and the Defendants/Appellants as the Defendants. The Plaintiff issued her writ of summons and statement of claim on 26/5/20 claiming: (a) An amount of Ten Million Cedis (¢10,000,000.00) as compensation for professional negligence. (b) General damages. (c) Cost occasioned by the action including legal fees. (d) Any other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit. In response to this the Defendants on 1/6/20 filed a Motion on Notice and a supporting affidavit praying the court for an order setting aside the Plaintiff’s writ of summons for the failure to comply with fundamental legal principles in exercise of the courts inherent jurisdiction to stem the abuse of processes. On 2/6/20 after filing the above motion the 1st and 2nd Defendants entered conditional appearance. On 22/6/2020 the Plaintiff filed an Affidavit in Opposition to the Motion. In their Affidavit in Support in paragraphs 3-7 of the depositions the Defendants spelt out certain lapses which in their view rendered the Plaintiff’s writ a nullity. SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 In its Affidavit in Opposition the Plaintiff vehemently opposed the application and argued that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the writ of summons and statement of claim as same had been issued in accordance with the Rules of Court and the 1st Defendant had been properly described to the best of the Plaintiff’s knowledge. See paragraph 7 of the Affidavit in Opposition (Page 15 of the ROA). In response to the charge that the writ has been issued by an unregistered legal firm the Affidavit in Opposition had, attached to it as annexures, the following: 1. Certificate of Registration of Chambers dated 30/01/2020 of the law firm Nyamekye and Partners issued by the General Legal Council. 2. The General Legal Council Practicing certificate for Mr. Sylvester Nyamekye Counsel for Plaintiff dated 9/01/2020. On 26th June, Counsel for the Defendants arguing the motion stated that it had been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court because the writ failed to comply with the following fundamental legal principles: 1. 1st Defendant is described as County Hospital and ought to have been referred to as County Hospital Ltd. As a result of the misdescription the Defendant has no juristic personae. 2. Failure to state the residential address of the Defendants. 3. Order 81 does not cure fundamental legal deficiencies. Counsel for Defendants cited the following authorities in support of his contention. Standard Bank Offshore Vrs NIB, Appeal No J4/63/2016 dated 21st June 2017. The Republic V. High Court, Accra Ex Parte Salloum & 3 Ors [2011] 1 SCGLR 574 at 577. SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 Counsel for the Defendants prayed that the writ be set aside as falling foul of the legal principles outlined above. In response Counsel for the Respondent argued that Order 81 cures all the irregularities and that the application was unmeritorious and was diverting attention from the critical substantive issues. The Learned Trial Judge, in her ruling, stated as follows: “Even though the Plaintiff stated the 1st Defendant was a Limited Liability Company at paragraph 2 of the statement of claim it did not add “Limited” to the name of the 1st Defendant. The Defendant’s residential address was also not stated but there was an indication that “the Plaintiff will direct service” which was an acceptable practice. The Learned Trial Judge stated further as follows: “Once the Plaintiff has acknowledged that the 1st Defendant is a limited liability company this court will allow them to amend the writ. These are preliminary issues and the court will allow the Plaintiff to amend the face of the writ and for the court to proceed. Plaintiff granted 7 days to so amend and serve the Defendants. These are indeed valid issues raised by the Defendants Counsel, but the court will allow amendments on the face of the writ. No order as to costs.” The matter did not end on this otherwise happy or peaceful note as should have been the case, due to some challenges that emerged subsequently. SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 On 22/7/20 the Plaintiff amended their writ and statement of claim and filed an Amended statement of claim pursuant to the court order dated 26/6/20. The Defendants entered appearance on 23/7/20 and filed their Statement of Defence on 23/7/20. The Plaintiff thereafter filed a Reply on 6/2/21. On 11th March, during the day’s proceedings in court, Defendants’ Counsel drew the Court’s attention to the fact that the time for the Court’s order, of 26/6/2020, that the writ be amended within 7 days be complied with, ended on 3rd July 2020. The Plaintiff however filed the amended writ on 22nd July 2020 without seeking an extension of time. Counsel argued that this flouted the court’s order and prayed that the amended writ and all other processes be struck out. He cited the following cases in support of his contention. Doku Vrs Presby Church of Ghana [2005-2006[ SCGLR 700. Agbesi Vrs Ghana Ports & Harbours Authority [2007-2008] SCGLR 469 at 481. Republic Vrs High Court, Kumasi Ex Parte Bank of Ghana & Ors (Sefa & Asiedu Interested Parties) No 1: Republic Vrs High Court, Kumasi. Ex Parte Bank of Ghana and others (Gyamfi & Ors, Interested Parties) (No. 1) (Consolidated) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 477 at 482 Holding 3, where the court held that: “It was well-settled that where an applicant was clearly out of time without an extension granted by the court any process filed out of time was Nullity and no jurisdiction would be conferred on any appellate court or adjudicating body, unless the contrary was shown.” In reply Counsel for Plaintiff explained that he applied for the record of proceedings in respect of the court orders but did not get same until the time of the orders had lapsed. That SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 accounted for the delay. He therefore prayed that on the basis and in the spirit of Order I rule 2 the court would abridge the time for them to proceed with the matter. In her ruling the Trial Judge stated as follows: “The writ has indeed been amended, though out of time; but I do accept the explanation of the Counsel for the Plaintiff that procuring the proceedings of the day may have resulted in the delays caused. Counsel for the Plaintiff therefore ought to have come back to the court to seek an extension of time but failed to do so. Ordinarily therefore, I would have granted the Defendant’s Counsel’s request. I however take into consideration the delays that this will cause and instead of striking out the amended writ and all subsequent processes, I will proceed to exercise my discretion in favour of the Plaintiff and award costs in the circumstances. Costs of GH¢2,000.00 against the Plaintiff. Matter to proceed.” It is instructive to note that Defendant’s Counsel’s immediate and initial response to this was to ask for leave to file additional issues as their issues had not been captured. The Trial Judge agreed to this and directed that additional issues be filed and served on the Plaintiff’s Counsel. Notice of Appeal Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the ruling the Defendants Counsel on that very day 11/03/2021 filed a Notice of Appeal with the following as the Grounds of Appeal: SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 (a) The ruling disregarded the breach of the courts own order in a manner impermissible by law thereby occasioning a substantial miscarriage of justice to the Defendants/Appellants. (b) The last proceeding in the matter being over six (6) months a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Honourable Court had not been met by the Plaintiff/Respondent. (c) The ruling of the Honourable Court is contrary to binding judicial dicta on the need to obey rules of court and timelines for the conduct of litigation. (d) The ruling is against the weight of evidence before the Honourable Court. (e) Additional grounds will be filed upon receipt of a certified copy of the ruling. The relief the Appellant seeks is for an order to set aside the said ruling of the Honourable Court dated 11/03/2021 and a further order striking out the purported amended writ as well as all other processes based thereon and a further order striking out the writ which commenced the suit for breach of fundamental legal principles. It is important to note that no additional grounds were filed by the Appellant. Counsel for the Appellant argued all the first three grounds of appeal together contending that they were all interrelated procedural matters. In respect of ground one which is that “The ruling disregarded the breach of the courts own order in a manner impermissible by law thereby occasioning a substantial miscarriage of SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 Justice to the Defendants/Appellants.” Counsel for the Defendants relied on the case of Ayiwah vrs Badu 1963 1GLR 86 at 87 Holding I and stated that an amendment lapses if not done within the time prescribed by the court. In that case the Supreme Court held as follows: “The leave to amend the writ and statement of claim ipso facto became void upon the Plaintiff’s failure to take steps to implement it. Leave may operate to bring into existence an effective amendment if the amendment is ordered by the court proprio motu but it is still advisable for Counsel in whose favour it has been granted, to enquire about it and if necessary see to its implementation.” In respect of the second ground (ground b) that is “the Last proceeding in the matter being over six (6) months a condition precedent to the assumption of Jurisdiction by the Honourable Court had not been met by the Plaintiff/Respondent. Counsel refers us to Order 37(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) in support of his contention. Order 37(3) provides that: “Where six months have elapsed since the last step taken in any cause or matter, the party who wishes to proceed shall give to every other party not less than twenty eight (28) days notice of the intention to proceed.” Counsel argues that this mandatory rule was utterly disregarded in the case. The third ground is that “The Ruling of the Honourable Court is contrary to binding judicial dicta on the need to obey rules of court and time lines for the conduct of litigation.” Counsel noted that the importance of time in litigation has been emphasized in a number of judicial dicta in the following cases among others: SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 Oppong Vrs Attorney General [2000] SC GLR 275 at 276 per Bamford Addo JSC. Republic vrs High Court (Financial Division) Accra, Ex Parte Tweneboah Kodua [2015-2016] 1 SCGLR 535 at 544 where the court per Akamba JSC delivered itself as follows: “There is an emerging tendency in practice today to consider that the rules of procedure indeed do not matter so long as an application is placed before the court. Yet the rules of procedure are as integral as the substantive law to the success of the trial process. It is therefore essential that timelines set down under the rules of court are adhered to, so as to facilitate timely trials. Infringement of these rules without reasonable justification should be met with corresponding sanctions or denials.” (emphasis ours) We remark that the dicta above has the rider “without reasonable justification” and we would like to emphasise same and observe that the Trial Judge stated that in the instant case that there was a reasonable justification for the delay found by her which prevented her from cracking the whip. It is also instructive to note that the dicta in the Bank of Ghana Consolidated cases cited supra also has a rider that any process filed out of time was a nullity “unless the contrary was shown.” In his written submission, counsel for Defendants does not comment on the fourth ground that the ruling is against the weight of evidence and appears to have abandoned same sub- silentio. It is as well that this is the case because the apex court now urges that the omnibus ground is better used or relied on in cases where there is a full trial and evidence has been given. SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 The reliance on the omnibus ground in interlocutory appeals like the instant matter is therefore not deemed to be the best practice. See Atuguba & Associates vs. Holam Fenwick Willian LLP [2018-2019] 1 GLR 1. In a riposte to these arguments, counsel for the Plaintiff put forward the following arguments: Counsel first urges on us the trite learning that an appellate court “should not under any circumstances interfere with the findings of fact by the trial Judge except where they are clearly shown to be wrong or that he did not take all the circumstances and evidence into account…” See the cases of: In Re Bonney (dec’d) Bonney v. Bonney [1993-94) 1 GLR 610 at 617 per Aikins, JSC. Tuakwa v. Bosom [2001-2002] SCGLR 65 Counsel further refers to Order 1 Rule (2) on the objectives of C. I. 47 the legislation that governs the conduct of civil litigation at the High Court to the effect that “the rules shall be interpreted so as to achieve speedy and effective justice avoid delays and unnecessary expense.” Counsel also relied on the dictum by Sophia Akuffo (JSC) (as she then was) in the Republic vs. High Court, Koforidua, Ex parte Eastern Regional Development Corporation [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 21 at 47 as follows: “In its protective character rules of procedure promote order regularity, predictability and transparency which are essential for the assurance of the process in the delivery of justice and judicial effectiveness. In its remedial or practical character rules of procedure serve the purpose of facilitating the sound management of litigation and process efficiency… This implies that in as much as the rules are mechanisms put in place to ensure that the rules are complied with, they provide remedies to correct defects in order to ensure justice and fairness.” SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 Again, in the case of Opoku & Ors. (No. 2) v. Axes Co. Ltd, (No. 2) [2012] 2 SCGLR 1214. The court held that: “For the avoidance of doubt, Order 81 of the C. I. 47 is truly a comprehensive insurance policy covering all procedural defects arising from the provision of C. I. 47 except same also has a constitutional pedestal.” The oft-cited case of Republic v. High Court Accra; Ex parte Allgate Co. Ltd. (Amalgamated Bank Limited, Interested Party) [2007-2008]2 SCGLR 1041 was also relied on by the Plaintiff. Counsel for Plaintiff further referred to Order 16 rule 5 of C. I. 47 on amendment of writ or pleading with leave and argued that the Plaintiff amended her writ with leave of the court. The courts, he argued, have held that “no matter how late an amendment, it must be allowed if it helps determine the issues between the parties.” See the case of Mahama Hausa & Ors. vs. Baako Hausa & Anor. [1972] 2 GLR 469. Order 16 rule 8 also states as follows: “Where the court makes an order giving a party leave to amend a writ, pleading or other document, then if that party does not amend the document in accordance with the order before the expiration of the period specified for that purpose in the order or if no period is specified, within fourteen days after the order is made the order shall cease to have effect but without prejudice to the power of the court to extend the period.” Counsel argues that on the basis of the above rule the court has power to extend the time for the amendment and validate the order citing the case of Kwantreng v. Klu [1993-94] 1 GLR 280 in support of this contention. SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 Counsel acknowledged the failure to apply for extension of time to amend the writ but contends that the trial Judge in a proper exercise of her discretion pardoned such failure as there were clear issues to be tried and she wanted to avert delays and unnecessary expense to the parties. He contended further that the trial Judge took into consideration the fact that her decision would not occasion any miscarriage of justice to the Defendants and also that any inconvenience to the Defendants had been duly compensated for by cost. Counsel therefore urges this court to dismiss the interlocutory appeal and affirm the ruling of the trial Judge. ANALYSIS In analysing the subject and the arguments of the Counsel in the given circumstances of this case we find as very insightful and germane the comments of the eminent jurist and author Kwami Tetteh on the subject in his book CIVIL PROCEDURE, A PRACTICAL APPROACH, at pages 452-455 and would like to quote same in extenso: Grant of leave to amend: “In terms of the overriding objective of the rules, the exercise of discretion in an application for leave to amend must address the following factors namely; the need to allow a party to amend in order to present its case fully to the court and the inconvenience that the adversary may suffer. The first factor upholds the right of every party to a fair opportunity to advance all reasonable points intended to be made in the action. A denial of such opportunity would create a belief in the Losing party at the end of the case that the case would have been won if the court had permitted the amendment for the point to be raised. SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 The second factor maintains a balance of fair play between the parties. The playing field for litigation must be even; neither side may take a step in the action that unfairly prejudices the other side. Where the application is unopposed the court would infer that the amendment would not unfairly prejudice the respondent…” “So long as the other side may be compensated in costs for the amendment, the court will grant leave to amend. Costs are awarded as compensation in order to preserve the action rather than throw it out for a new action to be commenced – one does not throw away a thing that can be repaired efficiently.” “The administration of justice is a human activity and accordingly cannot be made immune from error. When a litigant or his advisor makes a mistake, justice requires that he be allowed to put it right, even if this causes delay and expense, provided that it can be done without injustice to the other party. Gale vrs Superdrug Stores PLC [1996] 3 ALL ER 468 @ 477, 478 per Millet L. J. In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands, Adjetey Agbosu v. Kotey [2003-2004] SCGLR 420.” This viewpoint finds expression in Order 16 and Order 81 of C. I. 47, the former enabling the rectification of errors arising in the course of the action while the latter sustains a defective action as an irregularity, awaiting the final decision of the Judge on the way forward. “Once the adversary may be compensated in costs, the court will exercise its ample discretion – (see the word “may” in Order 16, rules 5 & 7 C. I. 47) to grant the application for the attainment of the following goals: i. ii. The determination of the real question in controversy – Robertson v. Nii Akromah II [1973] GLR 445 The avoidance of multiplicity of actions – Dove v. Wuta Ofei [1966] GLR 299 SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 iii. iv. Amissah Abadoo v. Abadoo [1974] 1 GLR 110 And substantial justice Mussey v. Darko [1977] 1 GLR 147 Robertson v. Reindorf [1971] 2 GLR 289 CA per Amissah JA In the exercise of its discretion the court would neither be concerned that the proposed amendment was necessitated by mistake on the part of the applicant, nor that the mistake necessitating the amendment was grievous. The court does not penalize a party for mistakes committed by the lawyer by dismissing the claim or defence but will rather award costs in compensation.” The discussion of the subject is appropriately concluded by the author with the famous dicta in Cropper Vrs Smith [1884] 26 Ch. D 700 at 710 as follows: “It is a well-established principle that the object of the court is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they may make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights … I know of no kind of error or mistake if not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the court might not correct, if it can be done without injustice to the other party …” This principle has been applied in the local cases of Yeboa vrs Bafour [1971] 2GLR 199 CA and Hausa Vrs Hausa [1972] 2 GLR 489 CA Again it is imperative to note that Order 81 of C. I. 47 is titled “Effect of Non-Compliance with Rules” and rule 1 has the sub heading “Non-Compliance with Rules Not to render Proceedings Void.” Order 81 rule 2 provides as follows: (2) The court may, on the ground that there has been such a failure as stated in sub rule (1) and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it considers just. SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 (a) Set aside either wholly or in part the proceedings in which the failure occurred, any step taken in those proceedings or any document, judgment or order therein or (b) Exercise its powers under these Rules to allow such amendments to be made and to make such order dealing with the proceedings generally as it considers just. It is trite learning that under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (CI 47) Non Compliance does not automatically nullify proceedings. A party is required to raise the issue of breach before taking a fresh step or within a reasonable time. The Defendants complied with this. It is however instructive to note that Non-Compliance may or could be remedied under Order 81 of C. I. 47 apart from certain exceptions which have been clearly stated in the Allgate case referred to supra. In the Allgate case cited supra the Supreme Court refused to set aside proceedings for irregularity and per Date Bah JSC (as he then was) stated as follows: “What is intended to be covered by Order 81 are irregularities short of situations of want of jurisdiction or infringements of statutes other than the High Court Rules. Such irregularities are not to nullify automatically the proceedings that follow them. Thus whilst Order 81 rule 1 treats Non-Compliance with the High Court rules as not nullifying the non-Complying proceedings, the rule does not apply to Non Compliance which is so fundamental as to go to jurisdiction or which is a breach of a statute, other than the civil procedure rules, Non Compliance is to be regarded as an irregularity that does not result in nullity unless the non-Compliance is also a breach of the constitution or of a statute other than the rules of court, or the rules of Natural Justice or otherwise goes to the jurisdiction.” SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 Indeed the rules of court have to be complied with by practitioners for the game of litigation to be played well but there are some considerations taken into account by the court to remedy failures to comply with same where such non-Compliance does not fall under the special categories specified in the Allgate case. The Supreme Court case of Friesland Frico Domo Alias Friesland Foods BV vrs Dachel Co. Ltd [2012] 1 SCGLR 41, is apposite in this regard. The Plaintiff in that case failed to comply with the rule of procedure under Order 2 rule 4 of the Old High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LM 140 A) which provides that an intended Plaintiff must obtain leave of the court before issuing a writ out of the jurisdiction among other things, non-Compliance with which goes to jurisdiction and renders the proceedings void. The court held at page 50 of that case that “Both Order 81 of the New High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C. I 47 and Order 70 of the Old High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1954 (LN 140A) had provided in clear terms that Non-Compliance with the rules of procedure should not render any proceedings void but be regarded as a mere irregularity which might be allowed, amended or set aside on terms at the discretion of the court upon application brought within a reasonable time and the person applying had not taken a fresh step after becoming aware of the irregularity.” On the failure of Respondent to seek an extension of time to amend the writ we agree that was an unfortunate failure which could have been avoided with diligence on the part of her SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 Counsel. However Order 16 rule 8 grants the court the power to extend the period for an amendment to be made outside time limits earlier directed by the Court. The Court did so in this case and it is our opinion that the court was clothed with authority to do so under the rule 8 of Order 16. Again Superior courts have an inherent jurisdiction or power to do justice by their very nature by making appropriate orders and enforcing same. See the case of Attoh Quarshie Vrs Okpote [1973] 1 GLR 59, per Haytron Benjamin J. (as he then was). The Defendants other arguments are as follows: a) (a). the Plaintiff failed to state the order under which the writ was amended and this was fatal. b) The last step taken in the case was over six (6) months before the next step was taken, 28 days notice to the other party of intention to proceed was not given by the Respondent as required under Order 37 rule 3 of C. I. 47. It is our position that the arguments put forward in relation to Order 81 of CI 47 and the authority in Ex Parte Allgate specifying the special categories or exceptions where procedural irregularities cannot be remedied, adequately deal with these arguments. The error or irregularity did not affect the jurisdiction of the court and the Judge exercised her discretion judicially. In conclusion we are inclined to uphold the Trial Judge’s ruling for the following reasons. SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 There were indeed procedural irregularities and the Trial Judge admitted same and remarked that the Counsel for Defendants had put forward valid arguments. The irregularities however could be remedied under Order 81 and on the authority of the Allgate case and the Learned Trial Judge took appropriate steps to remedy same. The Counsel for the Defendants in our view did not explain how the decision to grant another opportunity to amend the writ to the Respondent had occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice to his clients. In accordance with the rules also cost was awarded to the Defendants to compensate them and they were given the opportunity to file additional issues so that they would not be unfairly prejudiced. Again the ruling does substantial justice to the parties and opens the way for the very critical issues in the case to be adjudicated on without unnecessary delay and expense to the parties. Thus the overall objective of the civil procedure rules are realized by the said decision. In our view the Trial Judge offered a reasonable justification for not cracking the whip. We are emboldened in this view by the dictum in the case of Cropper Vrs Smith, cited supra, that it is not the court’s business to punish litigants and their Counsel for errors, mistakes that crop up in the course of the proceedings but to decide the rights of the parties. We are of the view that all the grounds of appeal have not been made out and that the appeal should be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 The ruling of the Trial Judge dated 11th March 2012 is hereby affirmed. ALEX B. POKU-ACHEAMPONG (SGD) (JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL) I agree, ANGELINA M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) (JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL) (SGD) (SGD) I also agree, SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU (JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL) COUNSEL: Kwasi Afrifa for Defendant /Appellant Dennis Oppong Wiafe for Plaintiff /Respondents SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 SUIT NO: H1/45/2022, COUNTY HOSPITAL & ANOR VRS MARY AFRIFA YEBOAH, 28TH JULY, 2022 20