TISMARK INJA vs. TINA DEHEER AND AMELIA LAING

Baffour J.A: The linear shape that the suit took at the court below seems to have been upended by the introduction of a fundamental legal point that has been raised by the Plaintiff/Respondent in his written submissions before the court. And it appears that both parties contested the case on the assumption that the H/No 9, 2nd Circular Road, Airport Residential Area, being the res litiga, was confiscated by the State in 1989. Plaintiff at this court now submits that the claim he made at the High Court that the property was confiscated by the State was an error and that the property has never been confiscated by the State. Defendants/Appellants insists that the Plaintiff must be confined to his claim and the factual averments he made at the court below. And that for the court to sustain such a claim being raised by the Plaintiff will amount to the Plaintiff raising a point of law for the first time at this court when same had not been pleaded but also the point being totally contrary...