An Accra High Court has refused a motion filed by Deloitte and Touché to segregate two out of the 10 issues to be determined preliminarily in a case with Dram Oil & Trading Limited.
In a motion on notice for an order for trial filed by Deloitte and Touché, the issues set down were whether or not an earlier judgment by Justice Buadi in the 29th May, 2019 finally determined the issues relating to the Deloitte’s approach in the preparation and issuance of the Audit Report dated 4th March, 2019, and whether or not Dram Oil can relitigate the issues relating to the approach used.
Dram Oil’s response to the affidavit in opposition to the motion on notice for an order to set down two out of
Eight issues for the trial as preliminary issues for trial stated that the two segregated issues are a subject of stark dispute since Dram Oil contends that Justice Buadi did not deliver a final “Judgement” but an Interlocutory decision/ruling.
Dram Oil averred that Justice Aryene’s 18th May 2015 Judgment in Dram Oil’s favour was the only final Judgment and ignoring or treating as irrelevant in the conduct of the Audit, the subject-matter of negligence in the approach and preparation of the Audit Report was never an issue for determination before the Justice Buadi-presided Court.
The lawyer explained that Justice Buadi’s only duty was to determine the extent of the liability found by the Court to be due for payment to Dram Oil from Vihama Energy Limited, as was adjudged by Justice Aryene’s final Judgment in dated 18th May, 2015.
Dram Oil again stated in its response that on account of the position of the two parties on the two issues (Issues no. 7 and 8), the resolution of those Issues cannot be achieved without taking evidence from appropriately qualified witnesses to be called by the parties.
It would therefore serve no useful purpose to separate the trial of those two issues preliminarily, when in line with the Rules of Court, a more cost effective, speedy and effective justice would be achieved where all the Issues that have now been set down for trial are determined at one trial.
Dram Oil’s prayed that if the application were to be granted, the circumstances of the present case would present the real likelihood of a scenario of two separate trials, and such a scenario does not accord with the purpose of the rules, especially at the late stage of civil proceedings in respect of the suit.
The court agreed with the Dram Oil and dismissed the motion filed by Deloitte.
The court in dismissing the motion indicated that the separate trials should only be made in special circumstances or on special grounds because it is a departure from the beneficial object of the law that all disputes between parties be tried together, and the applicant has not demonstrated any special circumstances to warrant such an order.
The court thus awarded a cost of GH¢2000 against Deloitte.
ALSO READ: