JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.
It is unfortunate and highly undesirable that this appeal should turn on procedural matters rather than on merits, but the mischief was initiated by the respondent and in my view, there is no way of correcting it without giving blessing to the misinterpretation of Order 19, r. 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A).
The plaintiff instituted an action claiming the sum of ¢1,865.87 being one per cent commission due to him on a total sum of ¢186,587.79 representing the value of cheques collected by him and paid over to the defendant corporation. In a long statement of claim which I am obliged to reproduce almost in full as the action was fought on pleadings, the plaintiff stated:
“(3) In return for the act of collecting such debts, the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff a commission of one per centum on all collections that the plaintiff would make.
(4) The plaintiff transacted business with the defendant corporation on these terms till 30 May 1971, when one Mr. R. A. Ennuson, acting chief accountant of the defendant corporation, acting for and on behalf of the defendant corporation, ordered the plaintiff to stop collecting government debts from government ministries and departments for the corporation.
(5) Before the date of the said order, however, the plaintiff had already, at considerable cost to himself, distributed invoices to various debtors of the defendant corporation.
(6) After the date of the order aforesaid, the plaintiff collected cheques drawn by the above-mentioned debtors in payment of debts owed on the invoices distributed by the plaintiff before the date of the order aforementioned.
(7) These cheques were handed over to the defendant corporation who accepted them and has since received payment on those cheques to the total sum of ¢186,587.79.
(8) In spite of having taken the benefit of the plaintiff's services, the defendant corporation has flagrantly refused to pay to the plaintiff his due commission, despite the plaintiff's repeated demands.
(9) Wherefore the plaintiff claims as per his writ of summons."
The defendant corporation admitted paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the statement of claim and proceeded inter alia:
“(2) The defendants deny paragraph (4) of the statement of claim but say that acting through their official, the said Mr. R. A. Ennuson they terminated the plaintiff's authority to collect debts on behalf of the defendants from government ministries and departments
