An Accra High Court (Labour Division) has set November 25, 2021, to deliver its ruling on an application filed by Lighthouse Chapel International (LCI) seeking to amend its statement of defence in a suit initiated by six former pastors against the church.
The six pastors, Bishop Larry Odonkor, Bishop Oko Mensah, Rev. Edward Laryea, Pastor Seth Duncan, Pastor Edem Amankwah and Pastor Faith Makafui Fiakojo, filed their separate suits on April 19, this year, at the court presided over by Frank Aboadwe Rockson.
The pastors, among other things, have sued the church over Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) contributions and are also seeking a compensation to cover some investments they made in schools, churches of the LCI and for rental of cars while in the service of LCI as well as monies they spent on accommodation.
Justice Rockson is currently on leave and as a result, the application was moved before Justice Juliana Ananda Aikins, who has taken over the case as the interim judge.
Moving Application
Moving the motion for amendment before the interim judge, Vincent Kizito Beyuo, counsel for LCI argued that it had become necessary for the church to amend its statement of defence and counterclaims in order to aid the court to effectively determine all the issues in dispute between the parties.
He said the application, if granted will neither delay the determination of the case nor prejudice the plaintiffs.
“We stated in the affidavit in support that earlier on this court ordered parts of the defendant’s statement of claim and counterclaims to be struck out. The proposed amendment also takes into account the order made by this court,” Mr. Beyuo said and also notified the court that annexures to the application was a proposed statement of defence and counterclaim which set out the amendment being sought by the church.
Key Proposals
The proposals annexed to the application include a SSNIT report on the complaints, which was released on August 20, 2021 and exonerated the church of allegations made by the plaintiffs on non-payment of SSNIT contributions.
The SSNIT report also stated that there was no employer-employee relationship between Lighthouse Chapel International and the plaintiffs for the periods in contention for non-payment of SSNIT contributions.
Again, the church contends that the plaintiffs did not have the capacity to sue the church for the alleged non-payment of SSNIT contributions.
The LCI also denied any liability to the plaintiffs and said the plaintiffs’ claims were based on alleged breach of contract and therefore, any claims concerning matters that allegedly occurred before 2015 were barred by the Limitations Act 1972 ( N.R.C.D. 54 ).
Another issue which has been featured in the church’s proposed statement of claim include a police report on a criminal case against Oko Mensah for allegedly stealing a car belonging to the LCI.
Opposition
Counsel for the pastors, Kofi Bentil, opposed the application for amendment and urged the court to dismiss it.
He grounded his argument on Order 21 rule 14 of the High Court Civil Procedure rules, (C.I 47) which states that, “Any document to be used in conjunction with an affidavit shall be exhibited and not merely annexed or attached to the affidavit.”
Counsel said the church failed to exhibit its documents and hence, its application was in breach of the court’s rules.
Mr. Bentil further argued that they had not been properly notified and that the application did not constitute proper notice.
Being properly noticed, according to counsel, would afford his clients the opportunity to know exactly what to respond to in respect to the church’s application.
Response
In his response, Counsel for LCI said the defendant had specified in the notice of motion what needed to be done and the Church incorporated by reference the Proposed Amended Statement of Defence and that the rules permit for Proposed Amended Statement of Defence to be attached to the application.
Counsel further argued that counsel for plaintiffs had not demonstrated any prejudice the plaintiffs will suffer by the defendant not exhibiting the Proposed Amended Statement of Defence.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak