Infitco Company Ltd Vrs Frigo Ltd [2019] GHASC 17 (20 March 2019)

Infitco Company Ltd Vrs Frigo Ltd [2019] GHASC 17 (20 March 2019)

The defendant's application to dismiss the action as statute barred was not properly constituted under the rules, as it was filed after close of pleadings, did not comply with the requirements for raising a preliminary point of law, and failed to specifically plead the statutory basis and facts for limitation. The application was therefore incompetent and the proceedings based on it were a nullity.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 17
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Infitco Company Limited; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Frigo Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
20 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objections, Statute of Limitation, Pleadings, Case Management
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Preliminary Objections Statute of Limitation Pleadings Case Management

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Infitco Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Frigo Limited

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's application to dismiss the action as statute barred was properly constituted under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, CI 47, Order 33 rule 5
  2. 2 Whether the plea of limitation was properly pleaded in accordance with the rules of court

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's application to dismiss the action as statute barred was not properly constituted under the rules, as it was filed after close of pleadings, did not comply with the requirements for raising a preliminary point of law, and failed to specifically plead the statutory basis and facts for limitation. The application was therefore incompetent and the proceedings based on it were a nullity.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decision of the Court of Appeal upheld
  • Matter remitted to the trial court