Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
July 16, 1976
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
This is a running-down case, in which the plaintiff, an infant, suing by her next friend claimed against the defendants jointly and severally the sum of ¢30,000.00 as damages for personal injuries she sustained, when she was knocked down by a vehicle No. GG 6978 said to be owned by the first defendant, while it was being driven by the second defendant at Dawa Town on 7 November 1969.
An ordinary writ of summons and a separate statement of claim, paragraphs (1) and (2) of which contained these averments: "(1) The plaintiff is an infant aged twelve and sues through her next friend Tei Boite," and "(2) At all material times the first defendant was the owner of vehicle No. GG 6978," were filed on 4 December 1971; also copies thereof were served on the defendants on 7 December 1971; and appearances were entered by Lynes Quashie-Idun & Co. and Kudjawu & Co., solicitors, for the second and first defendants, respectively on 18 and 21 December 1971, on which latter date the first defendant's solicitors also filed a statement of defence, which contained this averment: "Paragraph (2) of the statement of claim is denied and the first defendant says that at all material time the motor car GG 6978 was owned by the second defendant."
[p.463]
On 24 December 1971, the second defendant's solicitors made the following search at the registry of the court; "Search for any written authority by Tei Quaiko, an infant, to Nii Boite as her next friend given to the plaintiff's solicitor and/or filed in court on or before the issue of the writ of summons herein, and if so, the date of such authority." And the result was: "There is no such authority by Tei Quaiko to Nii Boite found in the docket."
Four days later, there was filed by the second defendant's solicitors, a defence, the first paragraph of which read: "The second defendant admits that the plaintiff is an infant as averred in paragraph (1) of the statement of claim but contends that the said Nii Boite cannot validly maintain this action against the second defendant." And on 31 January 1972 the plaintiff's reply to it was also filed. That very day the summons for directions, too, was filed; and a week later two additional issues were filed on behalf of the second defendant. Then on 2 March 1972, the plaintiff's solicitor filed a document, whose contents were:
"Pursuant to Order 19 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), I send you herewith the consent statement of Mr. Boite who has agreed to act as
AI Generated Summary
Tei Quaiko, a twelve-year-old, sued Mobil Oil (Ghana) Ltd. and its driver, Solomon Lamptey George, through her father and next friend, Tei Boite, for injuries from being knocked down by vehicle No. GG 6978 at Dawa Town on 7 November 1969. The writ issued on 4 December 1971 named the next friend, but no written authority under Order 16, r.19 was filed at inception. The second defendant entered an unconditional appearance and later moved to strike out the claim for want of such authority. In March 1972, the plaintiff filed the next friend’s signed consent. Justice Griffiths‑Randolph held that the authority requirement exists to ensure a responsible adult provides security for costs, that omission at commencement is a curable irregularity, and that the second defendant, by unconditional appearance and defense, waived the irregularity; the late-filed consent cured noncompliance under Order 70, r.1. The striking‑out summons was dismissed, with ¢25.00 costs awarded against the second defendant.