SAMUEL DOUGLAS LANQUAYE LAMPTEY v. MOGYABI YEDOM LTD & 16 OTHERS

The Plaintiff by his amended writ dated 19th October 2005 claimed against the defendants jointly and severally the following

A declaration of title of the land described in the schedule attached to the statement of claim.

A further declaration that the 1st defendant has breached the leased agreement between plaintiff.

Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their agents servants and assigns from interfering with plaintiffs land.

Damages for trespass.

On 11th November 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim leave of which was granted on 10th November 2008 to amend the claim by adding a new paragraph which was captured in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the application for leave to amend the statement of claim. By that amendment a new paragraph numbered as paragraph 8 was added.

The amended writ referred to was filed on 19th October 2005 without leave of the court.

At the time that it was filed, two other writs with the same suit number BL261/2005 had been filed on 17-2-05 and on 9-5-05,

The one filed on 17-2-05 was headed as follows

NII ANOI LANTEY FAMILY AKOTO LANTEY ACCRA

VRS

1. MOGYABI YEDOM LIMTED

2. AUNTIE MERLEY

3. CHALES TINKORA

4. MATILDA APAW

5. MR, DOUDU

6. MR, YERENKYI

7. AUNTIE ATAAH

8. AKOTO BAMFO

It was accompanied by a statement of claim headed

NII ANOI LANTEY FAMILY

VRS

MOGYABIYEDOM LTD & 15 ORS

In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs were not named and no explanation was given as to how the defendants are eight in the writ but 16 in the statement of claim.

The writ filed on 9-5-05 was headed as follows

SAMUEL DOUGLAS LANQUAYE LAMPTEY

VRS

MOGYABI YEDOM LIMITED

AUNTIE MARY

CHARLES TINKORA

MATILDA APAW

MR DOUDU

MR. YEREKYI

AUNTIE ATAAH

AKOTO BAMFO

No statement of claim was attached to this writ dated 9-5-05

Since no statement of defence had than been filed, this writ may be considered as amended writ of summons, effected without leave of the court as pleadings had then not closed.

The endorsement on this writ was as follows

1. A declaration of title to land described in the statement of claim.

2. A further declaration that 1st defendant has breached the lease agreement between it and plaintiff.

3. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and assigns from interfering with the land.

In this writ filed on 9th May 2005, there was no claim for damages.

Even though no indication has been given in the statement of claim as to the p