NOVISI ARYENE JA:
After cross examining plainti ff's grantor at the trial, defendants (the appellants herein) applied to amend her statement of defence and counterclaim. In the supporting affidavit, defendants referred to documents which according to them were chanced upon at the Lands Commission, which further traced the root of the title of their grantor, George Odonkor Kuleape, to a certain E. B Abade Kotey who was hitherto unknown to defendants. And that they intend to rely on said documents which include the following indentures, in tracing their root of title to the disputed land:
I. Indenture dated 14/03/1978 at pages 159-164 of the ROA by which EB Ablade Kotey as vendor, granted the land in dispute to Shammy Yemoh.
II. Indenture dated 12/06/1980 at pages 165-169 of the ROA by which Shammy Yemoh as vendor, granted the land in dispute to Grace Omaboe
III. Indenture dated 14/11/1980 at pages 170-175 of the ROA by which Grace Omaboe as vendor, granted the land in dispute to George Odonkor Kuleape.
The application was vehemently resisted by plaintiff, (the respondent herein) on the following grounds: That in their pretrial check list, defendants indicated that they would not amend their pleadings; that per the depositions in the supporting affidavit, it is obvious that diligent efforts would have revealed the existence of the said documents; that having conducted their case based on some other documents, defendants cannot now change and introduce new documents; that the trial having commenced and the proceedings having reached an advanced stage, the grant of the application would delay the trial; that defendant having cross examined plaintiff's grantor, the amendment sought was in bad faith, more so as by defendant' new document s, they seek to trace their root of title to the same grantor and root of title which they have described as not genuine in their statement of defence.
The trial court refused the application and ruled thus;
'In paragraph 17 of the defendants/applicants statement of defence, they described the plaintiff's grantor as so called 'grantors'. This meant that the defendants/applicants did not recognize the plaintiff's grantor as their grantor.
The present application before the court if granted will mean that the defendants/applicants now also recognize the plaintiff's grantor as their grantor. This application was filed after the plaintiff's grantor had given evidence and was cross examined by counsel for the defendants/appli
