Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
SAEED K. GYAN, JA
This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, Cape Coast, dated 18th February, 2010.
By the said Ruling the Plaintiff’s action was summarily and peremptorily dismissed by the learned trial Judge, Owusu-Arhin, J. on the ground that there was no clear delineation of the Plaintiff’s land in the indorsement of his writ of summons and statement of claim.
The trial High Court Judge, Justice (Mrs.) Owusu-Arhin, delivered herself shortly thus:
“ The Court has noticed that neither the writ of summons nor the accompanying statement of claim state the measurement of the land being claimed by the Plaintiff, in other words, there is no clear delineation of the land.
This implies that the Plaintiff has come to Court uncertain about the extent of the land he is claiming title for, and it is a fundamental error, which is incurable by way of amendment.
The Plaintiff’s writ of summons is thereby void ab initio and of no foundation in base.
The writ is accordingly dismissed as incurably bad”. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision the Plaintiff on 23rd April, 2010 filed an appeal against the same seeking an order setting aside the order of the Court on the following original grounds of appeal, namely:
“(a) The trial Court erred in law by considering only one of the reliefs sought to dismiss the whole action
(b) The trial Court’s failure to permit the admission of the Court’s appointed Surveyor plan drawn disenable the Court realize that there were clear cut boundaries/boundary dispute to be resolved by the Court
(c) Judgment is against the weight of evidence
(d) Other grounds to be filed on receipt of record”. This Court having on 20/10/2014 granted leave to amend, the Plaintiff recast his grounds of appeal in the manner as follows:
“ a) The trial Court erred in law by considering only one of the reliefs sought to dismiss the whole action.
b) The trial Court’s failure to permit the admission of the Court’s appointed Surveyors drawn plan, disenabled the Court from realizing that there were clear-cut boundaries/or boundary dispute to be resolved by the Court.
c) The Court erred in law by failing to advert its mind to Order 81 Rule(1) & (2) of C. I. 47, which could have rendered to error identified as a mere irregularity d) The Judgment is against the weight of evidence”. Now, what are the facts and/or circumstances upon which the matter before this Court are founded? On 15th March 2005 the Plaintiff caused to b