JUDGMENT
TANKO AMADU JSC
(1) This appeal is from the judgment of the High Court (Kumasi) dated 30th July 2015. In the High Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Plaintiff’) claimed per his amended writ from the Defendants/Applicants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Defendants’) the following reliefs:-
“(a) An order for the recovery of Ghc336,700.00 being entry of
judgment against Kwabena Swanzy.
(b) An order for recovery of Ghc530,960 being extra expenses
obtained against Kwabena Swanzy.
(c) Interest on the above sums from 7th September, 2012 till date
of final payment.
(d) Costs”.
(2) By a process referred to as “Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to leave of court dated 22nd day of January 2015” filed on 5/2/2015 the Plaintiff strangely and in a suicidal procedural manner pleaded as follows:-
“10(a) The Plaintiff avers that the Defendants have since produced the
documents requested for in respect of the security deposit save that the documents are a forgery and by that the 2nd Defendant had perpetuated fraud on him.
PARTICULARS OF FRAUD
i. Accepting forged title document in respect of property alleged
by used to secure bail on behalf of Kwabena Swanzy.
ii. Accepting property documents without verifying the existence
of the property in respect of which said document was used.
iii. Accepting property document far and below the value of the security requested to be deposited.
10(b) The Plaintiff avers that by the above conduct too, the Defendant
have also been negligent, especially seeing that they have a duty of care in their peculiar position to ensure that the Plaintiff is protected against the Defendant judging by the process it had to adopt to get the said Kwabena Swanzy to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court below.
10(c) The Plaintiff avers that by the fraud perpetuated on him he has
suffered loss and damage by his inability to recover the debt owed him by the said Kwabena Swanzy since his efforts to execute judgment against security deposit turned out to be a hoax, the property does not exist”. (Pages 93-94 of the record).
(3) Subsequent to this new pleading by the Plaintiff, the Defendants purported to file an Amended Statement of Defence on 25/2/2015 pursuant to leave granted on 12/2/2015.The procedural effect of these pleadings by the parties is that, the Plaintiff’s first statement of claim filed on 20/3/2014 (pages 3-5 of the record) had been wholly abandoned in place for the amended statemen
