In this appeal I intend to refer to the respondent as the plaintiff and the appellant as the defendant as they represented themselves at the trial High Court, Tema. The indorsement on the writ of summons issued on behalf of the plaintiff was couched in the following terms:—
(1) General and special damages for breach of duty of care resulting in nervous shock and stroke.
(2) Interest on amount due to the plaintiff after calculating special damages at the current bank rate from November 1991 to date of payment.
When it is read out of context, that is to say, in dissociation with the statement of claim, the infelicity of the form in which the plaint was couched would inescapably lead any student of the plaint to conclude that it was in real sense an action in negligence and that what the plaintiff ought to prove to succeed has been indorsed on the writ rather than in the statement of claim. But, lo and behold, the indorsement is deceptive because the material facts pleaded in t…