MARIAN ASSO AMEDEDJI v. REV FATHER G. AMPIM TETTEH

J U D G M E N T

ANTHONY OPPONG JA:

This appeal which is from the judgment of the trial High Court calls into question whether in the particular circumstances of the pleadings or the pleaded facts it was proper for the learned trial judge to have directed the parties, as a case management strategy, to determine the case on a preliminary issue as to whether the plaintiff’s case was statute barred under section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54)

The background facts upon which the court below and the lawyers proceeded to argue whether the plaintiff’s action was statute barred or not resulting in the judgment of the High Court which judgment is being assailed by the instant appeal could not have been better stated by the learned trial judge in his judgment dated 13th June 2018. The Court would adopt them and they are as follows:

“Plaintiff is ordinarily resident in Sweden. Defendant is a retired priest of the Anglican Church, Accra. He is the maternal uncle of plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claim is that during one of her visits back home in Ghana in 1989, and following defendant’s promise to assist her purchase land to develop, she made payments to plaintiff first in 1989, and further between 1990-1995 a total sum of £15,892 for purposes of the purchase and development of the land.

According to plaintiff, on her final return back(SIC) home in Ghana in 27th May 2017 after a decade of protracted and interminable ill-health in Sweden, she found out that defendant has not purchased any land to develop despite his assuring promises of having not only purchased land but also developed it. Plaintiff cited defendant for fraud for presenting to her in 23rd February 1991 as proof of receipts of land he claimed to have purchased and letters of having acquired land for plaintiff and the progress of the building when in reality defendant knew that he had not purchased any such land”.

For the purposes of this delivery the descriptions of the parties as pertained in the High Court are maintained.

The Court notes with interest that defendant proffered no counter allegation(s) to any of the material averments contained in plaintiff’s statement of claim except mere denials. The only material averment contained in the statement of defence is the contention that plaintiff’s action is caught by the statute of limitation. By this state of the pleadings one would have thought that a Reply would not be necessary. But it is worth noting that plaintiff reacted, and rightly so, as