Try asking the following...
RULING
ACQUAH JSC:
The issue for determination in this ruling is whether or not a party’s statement of case filed woefully out of time, can be permitted to be amended, especially where the defaulting party has not asked for leave to rectify the default. But first, the brief facts.
On 13th April 1981, the Plaintiff took action at the Accra High Court against the Defendants, claiming as later amended:-
(a) “A declaration that in or about June/July 1979 she was the owner of all that piece or parcel of land situate at Madina and known as House NO. B/MDN/14 and fully described in the attached plan and Deed Registered as No. 4446/1978.
(b) That the sale of the said property by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant in June 1979 is null and void.
(c) General Damages”.
Later on, one Osmanu Alhassan was joined as Co-plaintiff. On 14th August 1989, the trial High Court dismissed the action with costs against the Plaintiff and Co-plaintiff. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed on 25th July 1995. A further appeal to the Supreme Court was once again dismissed on 17th June 1998. Still undaunted the plaintiff and co-plaintiff filed a motion on 2nd July 1998 for a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment. It is in respect of this review application that the plaintiff and Co-plaintiff/Applicants now seek leave to amend their statement of case. The basis of this application, as outlined in paragraphs 3 to 6 of their supporting affidavit, is as follows:
“3. On 2nd July 1998 we filed a motion for review of this Honourable Court’s said judgment of 17th June 1998, a certified copy of which became available only in late August 2001, whereupon we filed the written submission of our case for review.
4. In our hurry to file our written submission on time we omitted specifying the statutory basis of our case, namely that this Court’s decision was given per incuriam of the vital section 93(2) of the Administration of Estates Act, 1961 (Act 63), and of the relevant decided authorities on the effect of illegality.
5. We now specifically seek leave to supply this omission by a proposed amendment of our said written submission contained in the paper bearing the heading “Proposed Amendment of Written Submission of Plaintiff and Co-plaintiff’s case for review”.
6. And we pray for leave accordingly.”
The Defendants/Respondents resist the application on two grounds – first that there is, in law, no statement of case by the applicants, to be amended, and secondly the rules