JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.
This is an application by the plaintiffs for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from conducting examinations in four subjects scheduled to take place during 16 November to 2 December 1970.
Before the hearing of the motion, counsel for the defendants sought leave to raise and argue certain preliminary objections notice of which had been given in the defendants' affidavit in opposition to the motion. The preliminary objections were based on two matters, namely, that the writ and statement of claim disclose no cause of action and that the writ is bad. The plaintiffs' claims as endorsed on the writ are for:
(a) an order of mandamus that the defendants do forthwith declare as valid the June 1970 General Certificate of Education school certificate examination held in 36 centres in Kumasi;
(b) an order that the purported cancellation of the results is inequitable, unjust and illegal;
(c) an order that the defendants do forthwith award certificates on the result of the examination in accordance with section 6 (b) of the West African Examinations Council Act, 1970;
(d) an order of injunction to restrain the defendants from holding the examination scheduled for November 1970;
(e) damages for negligence.
Looking at the statement of claim it does appear that the statement does not set out the averments necessary to support an action for mandamus or for negligence since there is no averment of a demand and refusal to perform a public duty or of necessary particulars of negligence and the rest of the reliefs asked for by the plaintiffs appear to flow from these central complaints. Counsel for the plaintiffs, however, no doubt impressed by the force of the submissions on this aspect of the matter shifted his ground and maintained that the reliefs sought in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the writ are for declaratory judgments or orders as to the rights of the plaintiffs and the extent of the powers of the defendants in terms of the statute under which the defendants admittedly derive their status, powers and duties. Counsel contended that the court can, and in the circumstances of this case, ought to permit the plaintiffs to amend the wording of the endorsement to clarify the nature of the reliefs sought.
[p.65]
He states clearly that this is in no sense an action for mandamus and that the suit was brought under Order 25, r. 5 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A). The endorsement no doubt
