EBIASAH J.: By an oral application before this honourable court on 20 March 1991 the defendants’ counsel sought leave of the court to exercise an option under the plaintiff’s amended indorsement on his original writ of summons filed together with a statement of claim on 25 April 1985. It would be recalled that this court granted the plaintiff leave to amend on 15 January 1991, by which a third additional relief was added to the said writ of summons to read:
“(3) Alternatively the refund of the sum of ¢19,000 plus interest at the current bank rate, and the return of 86 bags of cement and 2,500 pieces of cement blocks or their open market value at the date of judgment.”
The defendants’ counsel argued that the third additional relief should be interpreted by the court as granting the defendants with a clear option to select or choose from the plaintiff’s writ of summons which of the three reliefs they would like to give to the plaintiff for his alleged losses under the contract of sale of …