HAYFORD v. ANSAH AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF PIESARE J.

On 31 July 1991 this court being fully satisfied upon the evidence and upon the law that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the defendants for defamation, entered judgment against them jointly and severally for the sum of ¢2 million damages for defamation, plus ¢200,000 costs.

The following are the reasons for this judgment against the defendants. The claim against the defendants jointly and severally was for the sum of ¢2,700,000 for the defamatory words published against the plaintiff by the defendants in the Ghanaian Voice issue No. 131 of 11 - 17 November 1985.

The original writ of summons and the original statement of claim were filed the same day on 8 January 1986. After a series of amendments, the statement of claim was finally amended by the plaintiff pursuant to an order of the court dated 21 July 1989. The defendants did not react to the plaintiff’s final amendment by filing any amended defence or defences.

Now Order 28, r. 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) provides that:

"5. Where any party has amended his pleading under Rule 2 or 3, the opposite party shall plead to the amended pleading, or amend his pleading, within the time he then has to plead or within eight days from the delivery of the amendment whichever shall last expire; and in case the opposite party has pleaded before the delivery of the amendment, and does not plead again or amend within the time above mentioned, he shall be deemed to rely on his original pleading in answer to such amendment."

Where therefore the plaintiff, as in this suit, amends his statement of claim pursuant to an order of the court, and the defendants do not react to the amendment by amending their original defence or defences within [p.278] the requisite time, they are deemed to rely on their original statement of defence or statements of defence.

In this suit the defendants did not react to the plaintiff’s amendment of his statement of claim by amending their defence or defences. They were therefore deemed to rely on their original defence or defences filed respectively by the first and third defendants on 3 March 1986, and by the second defendants on 2 December 1986.

The cause of action and the alleged defamatory words published against the plaintiff were pleaded by the plaintiff. The offending Ghanaian Voice issue No. 131 of 11-17 November 1985 was also tendered in evidence as exhibit A. The alleged libellous article in exhibit A comme