JUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J.
The plaintiff, who is a limited liability company, on 9 August 1985 caused this writ to be issued against the defendant claiming:
“(1) a return of one Toyota/Albion 8 tonner vehicle No. AZ 5567, the reason being that although this vehicle was let under a hire-purchase agreement the defendant had breached the terms of the agreement.”
Although on 19 June 1987 and 27 October 1987 the plaintiff was [p.61] granted leave to amend the indorsement on the writ by the addition of two new reliefs, an alternate relief for the sum of ¢998,000 being the balance of the hire-purchase price due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff and interest on the said sum at the rate of 23 per cent, in spite of the fact that they were ordered to file the pursuant amendment within a week of the grant of leave in the case of the first amendment and by 11 November 1987 in the case of the second, they have failed to comply with the orders.
Similarly, although the defendant was granted leave to amend and ordered further to file the necessary amendment, I found no evidence that the defendant complied with the order. In which case the amendments became ipso facto void by virtue of Order 28, r.7 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A).
By her counterclaim therefore she in turn claims against the plaintiff.
"(a) ¢715,000 being the amount paid to the plaintiff per Tetteh Daniel in respect of vehicle No. AZ 5567 which is not roadworthy.
(b) The sum of ¢106,000 being the amount expended by the first defendant on the said vehicle.
(c) The sum of ¢19,400 being the amount paid to the plaintiff for the insurance of the said vehicle which it failed to do.
(d) An order for a lien over the vehicle No. AZ 5567 till the claims are paid by the plaintiff to the defendant."
The first issue for determination is whether or not the plaintiff sold vehicle No. AZ 5567 to the defendant on hire-purchase terms. I do not think this issue poses any problems. While it is true that the defendant has a long history of how it came about that this vehicle was sold, I do not think for our purposes it is necessary to go into that. The parties are both agreed that this was the position. The evidence of the plaintiff which was accepted by the defendant on this point was overwhelming. Exhibit A, the hire-purchase agreement, itself bears eloquent testimony to this fact. And one therefore wonders how it could have seriously been an issue for determination. Again, like
