STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. ADDO

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 t...