George and Company v Pritam's Auto Service
George and Company v Pritam's Auto Service (Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1954) [1955] EACA 293 (1 January 1955)
The Court of Appeal held that amending the plaint from the trade name 'George & Company' to the plaintiff's real name, M. P. George, did not amount to a substitution of parties but was a correction of misnomer permissible under Order 6 rule 19 without leave. The trial judge erred in disallowing the amendment based on a misapprehension of the law and failure to consider binding precedent (Phakey v. World Wide Agencies Ltd.). Further, the Court found that the amended plaint was not ambiguous or embarrassing; it clearly set out the cause of action for goods sold and delivered and properly pleade…
Source excerpt
- Amendment Of Pleadings
- Misnomer And Party Description
- Promissory Notes
- Conditional Payment
- Judicial Discretion
- Striking Out Pleadings