OFOE,J.A.:
On a careful reading of the record of appeal I found it impossible distancing myself from the frustration and despair that the respondents, who I will refer to as the plaintiffs, went through while their case, which started in 1993, went through adjournments upon adjournments and through the hands of several judges. I will refer to the appellant as the defendant. We are here talking about a case that took 16 years to reach judgment. And the reason for this avoidable delay, as disclosed in the record of appeal, is mainly a combination of carelessness of lawyers and court officials. From the pleadings filed on behalf of the parties and the several amendments that followed it is clear that even though the lawyers who handled the suit appreciated the facts of the case they, for unknown reason, found it difficult determining the appropriate relief to seek from the court, thus necessitating amendments upon amendments. Come to think of it that after the several amendments both counsel even forgot that the issues that were set at the close of pleadings needed to be amended to fit the eventual pleadings that formed the basis of the trial. It was rather the trial judge who had to reformulate the whole issues in the course of his judgment. This is what the trial judge said:
“I must say that ever since both parties have amended their respective pleadings. Plaintiffs have even amended the endorsement on their writ of summons on 9th June 2008. Issues (a) and (b) above have therefore become irrelevant. Upon studying the various amendments and having heard the parties, the issues which to me call for consideration by the court are inter alia…………”
The trial judge abandoned all the earlier issues set because the amendments made by both counsel in the course of trial had made them irrelevant. Surely if both counsels had been a little more diligent they would have realized the need to amend the earlier issues set in view of the subsequent amendments.
And when His Lordship Gyamera Tawiah got the case started, the whole evidence on record up to the 4th defence witness had to be aborted. Why because not known to the parties and their lawyers the suit had earlier been struck out on Registrars Summons as far back as the 2nd November 2000. Whether they were notified of this Registrars Summons or not was not determined by the court. It appeared not to have been raised for the consideration of the court. When the fact of the suit having been struck out on this day 2nd
