Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
HONYENUGA, J.A.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff/appellant against the decision of the High Court, Tarkwa dated the 3rd day of February, 2011.
The said judgment dismissed the plaintiff/appellant’s suit and awarded costs of GH¢1,000.00 against him.
The facts culminating into this appeal are that one Appolo, a brother of the 2nd defendant/respondent approached the plaintiff/appellant to sign a bail bond for the 2nd defendant/respondent.
The plaintiff/appellant signed the bail bond when pressure was put on him to do so.
The 1st defendant/respondent informed the plaintiff/appellant that the 2nd defendant/respondent had two tower lights with Engineers and Planners Company Limited which would yield income to liquidate the 2nd defendant/respondent’s indebtedness.
The plaintiff/appellant repaired the tower lights at a cost of GH¢800.00.
After it had worked for two months, the seller by a Court Order seized them because the 2nd defendant/respondent did not fully pay for them.
The plaintiff/appellant got to know that the defendants/respondents were business partners who urgently needed funds to resuscitate their joint enterprise.
The plaintiff/appellant claimed that Suit No. E2/3/07 was a ruse intended to defraud him and that at the time of the suit none of them was indebted to the other.
The plaintiff/appellant contended that the judgment obtained as a result of that suit be set aside on the ground of fraud.
The 1st defendant/respondent denied that he was in any business with the defendant/respondent and that he is a teacher by profession and the said suit was vigorously pursued because the 2nd defendant/respondent owed him the equivalent of GH¢499.52.
The plaintiff/appellant was not coerced but paid the debt for their mutual benefit.
The 1st defendant/respondent contended that after the judgment, the plaintiff/appellant invited him to his house and in the presence of his wife and the absence of Appolo, but no issue of tower lights were discussed and that he got to know them through the proceedings in court.
The 1st defendant/respondent also contended that the plaintiff/appellant had no capacity to initiate the instant suit against him because he did not seek leave of the 2nd defendant/respondent as by law and further that the action was tainted by fraud and brought in bad faith.
The 2nd defendant/respondent did not file an appearance or a defence.
After pleadings closed the court set down the following issues:- “(a) Whether the plaintiff has locu