JUDGMENT OF DJABANOR J.
In this action the plaintiff is claiming from the two defendants damages for personal injuries caused to him by the negligent driving of the first defendant, the servant or agent of the second defendant. When the first defendant, then the only defendant, was served with the writ of summons and the statement of claim in the case, counsel entered appearance for him and filed a statement of defence on his behalf. It appears that subsequently this counsel withdrew from the case and Mr. Kom notified the court that he was now appearing for the defendant. At that time, 27 August 1964, the only defendant was Kwaku Sei. Until this time the statement of defence filed by Mr. Okorley, the first counsel for the defendant Kwaku Sei, was to the effect that Kwaku Sei was the owner of the lorry that caused the accident in which the plaintiff was injured. The defendant also then pleaded that the accident was caused by inevitable accident due to the slippery surface of the road. Damages were also put in issue.
In due course the hearing of the case started and it appears that in the middle of the defendant's evidence the trial was adjourned for the plaintiff to join the second defendant as co-defendant. This was done and the second defendant was served with the relevant pleadings in the case. After the second defendant had filed his statement of defence by himself, the court granted leave for the plaintiff to file an amended writ and statement of claim, copies of which were served on the two defendants. It does not appear that either of them amended his statement of defence thereafter. But the whole trial was fought on the issues as between the defendants whether the second defendant had sold the vehicle to the first defendant before the accident, i.e. whether the vehicle was at the material time owned by the first defendant who was then driving it, or by second defendant, who said he had sold it to the first defendant.
Mr. Kom, it turned out, in fact was appearing not for the first defendant but for the second defendant, and the first defendant had no counsel. Mr. Kom for the second defendant did not contest the question of negligence or otherwise of the first defendant, he was denying the liability of the second defendant so he only tendered a document and called no witnesses.
[p.45]
The issues which I had to try were: (a) whether the fist defendant, the diver, was negligent in his driving; (b) who owned the vehicle the first defendant was dri
