ABDUL RAHAMAN SULEMANA v. ABDUL SAMIN ABDUL RAHAMAN AND HUMEIMA ABDUL RAHAMAN

1. This is judgment relates to land.

2. The plaintiff described himself as an Islamic Teacher while the defendants are

described as younger siblings of the plaintiff. Thus, parties are of the same father but

different mothers.

3. On 17th May, 2022, plaintiff took out q Writ of Summons against the defendants. This

court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended Statement of Claim. However,

plaintiff failed to do so. By law, failure to amend Writ of Summons or Statement of

Claim upon grant of leave, can be cured by looking at the substance rather than the

form, see the cases of Mumuni v Nyamkye [2013] 58 GMJ at 61-62, CA and Republic

v High Court, Accra, Exparte Allgate Co. Ltd. [2007-2008] SCGLR 1041. In Mumuni

v Nyamkye (supra), the Court held per Ayebi JA that, “The leave granted the plaintiff

to amend his writ by the addition of a claim for declaration of title is acknowledged.

The failure to effect the amendment was a default on the part of his new counsel who

did not digest fully the brief he took over. It is not the practice of the courts to visit the

sins or omissions of counsel on the client who is unlettered in law. Since the Rules of

Court mandate the courts to interpret the rules liberally and beneficially in order to

do substantial justice to the parties, I am of the view that there is sufficient justification

for this court to amend the Writ of Summons as if the order of the trial court had been

duly carried out by the plaintiff ... .” I must point out that the amendment granted the

plaintiff in this case had do with the description of the defendants as his siblings.

Defendants were described as plaintiff’s brother’s or late brother’s siblings. All other

pleadings remained the same. Hence, I shall cloth myself with Or. 1 rule 1 of the

District Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, (CI 59) similar to the other Rules of Court

and Mumuni v Nyamkye (supra), in holding that the Statement of Claim is so

amended to reflect that defendants are ‘plaintiff’s younger siblings’.

4. Per his Writ of Summons, the plaintiff claims against the defendants the following

reliefs:

a. A declaration that all that piece of land described as House No. 132, situate

and lying at Ward A Residential Area is the property of the plaintiff.

b. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from

trespassing onto the property of the plaintiff.

c. General damages against the defendants for trespassing on plaintiff’s

property.