Try asking the following...
RULING
This Ruling is about an objection taken to a supplementary affidavit filed by Applicant.
The application has been made under Order 11 Rule 18(1) (d) of C. I. 47/04. The supporting affidavit showed that, on 24/04/2019, applicant initiated this action by taking an originating application from the Registry of this court for a number of Reliefs.
And in response to an affidavit filed in answer and after written submissions have been filed and the action set for hearing, applicant purport to file a supplementary affidavit in support, without leave.
Secondly, it has been contended that, there is an amendment introduced by Applicant in the supplementary affidavit, making changes in the Reliefs sought and that, this cannot be done without leave and in the form in which the Applicant is seeking to effect an amendment.
In response, the affidavit of Applicant/Respondent showed the following: a. That, what is being complained about does not constitute a surprise and no such contention has been raised.
b. That, the Reliefs sought are matters that arose from the same cause of action, before this court in respect of which reliefs have already been claimed.
c. That, no prejudice is occasioned by the step taken by respondent and therefore in the interest of substantial justice, the step taken must be accepted and the objection to it, dismissed.
The dispute here is essentially about procedure adopted in effecting or seeking to amend an originating application.
The title of the action and the provisions of the 1992 constitution cited and the citation of Order 67 of the High Court, Civil Procedure Rule showed that, the applicant is seeking to enforce her fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, enshrined in the 1992 constitution.
And when there is a challenge or issue about procedure adopted, Order 11 Rule 18 and the jurisprudence on it are not applicable.
Because that rule relates to pleadings [properly so called ]My reason for saying so, could be found in the opinion of Sophia Akuffo: J. SC in the case: AWUNI VRS. W. A. E. C (2003/4)The Supreme Court, stated the procedure the scope and how a cause of action and the pleadings as a whole in Human Right adjudication must be handled.
She delivered herself as follows: “when ART 33(1) gives to a person alleging that any of his right and freedoms under chapter 5, has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened, the right to apply to the High Court for redress, there is an irresistible presumption that such a person ma