SIMAVI COMPANY LTD VRS FELIX NYARKO-PANG (LD/0541/2023) [2024] GHAHC 198 (7 June 2024)

SIMAVI COMPANY LTD VRS FELIX NYARKO-PANG (LD/0541/2023) [2024] GHAHC 198 (7 June 2024)

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Plaintiff’s Reply do not constitute a new claim or cause of action but are direct responses to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence, clarifying the dealings and allegations of fraud; thus, they are permissible under the rules of pleadings.

Citation
SIMAVI COMPANY LTD VRS FELIX NYARKO-PANG (LD/0541/2023) [2024] GHAHC 198 (7 June 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Simavi Company Limited; Defendant/applicant: Felix Nyarko-Pang
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
7 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Paragraphs of Reply
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Rule Against Departure, Reply to Defence, Fraud Allegations
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Land Law Pleadings Rule Against Departure Reply to Defence Fraud Allegations

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simavi Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Felix Nyarko-Pang

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Paragraphs of Reply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Plaintiff’s Reply constitute a new claim or cause of action inconsistent with previous pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is permitted to allege new facts in the Reply

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Plaintiff’s Reply do not constitute a new claim or cause of action but are direct responses to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence, clarifying the dealings and allegations of fraud; thus, they are permissible under the rules of pleadings.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Motion to strike out paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Plaintiff’s Reply dismissed
  • Costs of Two Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,000.00) awarded against Defendant