Josephine R. Ellis & Another v Cecil O.E King (MISC APP 11 of 2000) [2000] SLCA 4 (6 July 2000)

vt jSz 3 mwEE MA JOSEPHINE E.R. ELLIS DESMOND C.0. ELLIS AWD CECIL 0.2. XING : CORAMS— , HON. MRS. JUSTICE V.A.D. WRIGHT . y a HON. MR, JUSTICE N.D, ATHADI : HON. MR. JUSTICE M.E.1. THOMPSON - | wRIGH? J.A.t- ._ Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Responient appitet Viva Voce for leave to amend the reliof claimed at Page 4 of the Rect? _ for the amount Le2,544,898 to be amended to read Le26,452 542 Pursuant to Rule 32 of the Court of Appeal Rules Public Notice Nos 29. of 1985 "and Order 58 Rule 9 in the White Book of 1960. He sybmitted that they was sufficient evidence at the rial to support the amendment sought. That the amendment is necessary so that the judgment and the. evidgnee ere not at variance. '~ sere Learned Counsel for the Defendant/Appellant opposed this appligat "stating thet 4¢ was,e Ground of Appeal and that grave injustice willy donexto the Appellant if the application for the amendment is grerted this stage. It is an undoubted law that the Court of Appeal has an unfettered Power to allow an amendment for the purpose of determing the réql. _ Mestion in oonimoreny between the parties to pa proceedings om pos “orpecting ay defect or error in any proceedings if 1% can be dong. "ithout injustice to the other side. %In OROFPER V. SMITH (1884) 260H,; ren 13 had this to say at Page 710-T11eceeeeee “It seams to me that *8 B00n as it appears that the way in which & party has proved hipooas "Sl not lead to a decision of the resl’matter in controverey it is:a5 aig of right on this part to have s correctea'tiy cen be dom injustice, as anything else in the case is a matter of right,w

C—O ————

ghe Application of Counsel’ for leave to amend the pleedings or ne record ig within the competence of this court to entertain but as jpupether 44 will grant or refuse the application is encther conside ration depending om the cixeumstances See DAVIES V. BICKESETH 1964/66 yn(S.l-) Page 403+. sits . one of the issues settled. by the pleadings dg the.pecuniary com pensation to the Respondent for the loss suffered by the deprievatio: of bis proprietoxy interest in the property the subject matter of tt “aotion. te ; Prom the record it is very cleer that this idsue has been” . ventilated by evidence et the Trial, end tt mst be patently obviows to Comsel for the Pleintiff, now Respondent, that’en amendment to + pleading should have been made. in application- for leave to amend therefore at this stage, having ere eway the opportunity opened t then, in our view will work grave injustice to the AppeZlant which ~ cesnot adequately be compensated ty Costs. tn the Light of this ‘tht epplication is refused. es |

I Tn Sees oi iste =| 4 » , le r a eee Hon. Mr. Tudtdoe NV sabe I were cseee A Treen _. Hon. Mr. Justice MH. wt ‘Thompet