MOSES ASAFU ADJEI

The following judgments were delivered :-

MICHELIN, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Acting Circuit Judgt of Ashanti (His Honour Francis John McDowell) dated the oth October 1929, in favour of the defendants with costs.

By his writ of summons dated the 28th July, 1928, the plaintiff claimed from the first defendant :-

"possession of plaintiff's compound house situated at Kajatia on plot No. 387 which plot is known as Juabeng Stool land, and which house by a mortgage deed dated the 27th day of August, 1912, was mortgaged by the plaintiff to one Kojo Derkyi since deceased for a loan of £250 plus interest of £100, which said compound house the said Kojo Derkyi deceased transferred possession of to Chief Yaw Dabanka as Caretaker."

On the action coming on for hearing before the Court on the 6th September, 1928, Kwami Akowua was on the application of the plaintiff joined as a co-defendant and the writ of summons was amended to read as follows:-

Plaintiff's claim is to call upon :-

(a) the second defendant Kwami Akowua to shew cause why he should refuse to accept repayment of an amount of £350 being as to £250 money lent to plaintiff by his predecessor Kwadjo Derkyi (since deceased) and as to £100 interest charged thereon, and which sum of £350 is due and payable under Deed of Mortgage dated 27-8-1912 and repayment of which amount was secured by plaintiff's house situated at Kajatia Prison Road Kumasi.

" (b) The first defendant Chief Yaw Dabanka to show cause why he alleged to have bought plaintiff's house situated at Kajatia Prison Road Kumasi for the sum of £250, well knowing the same to have been mortgaged to one Kojo Derkyi (since deceased) and of whom K wami Akowua is now the successor, and of which property the said Chief Yaw Dabanka was Caretaker who also signed as an attesting witness to the Mortgage Deed dated ~7-8-1912 given to the said Kwadjo Derkyi (since deceased)."

The plaintiff not having had the advantage of the assistance of Counsel in preparing his writ of summons, these particulars are rather peculiarly worded, but it is clear that the action as against the first defendant was intended to be a claim for the recovery of the possession of the mortgaged premises on the ground of the sale to the first defendant being invalid, and as against the second defendant, it was a claim for redemption.

It will be as well at this stage to set out in detail the contents of the mortgage deed in respect of which this action has been brough