The appellant in this appeal was the plaintiff in the High Court of the former east central State in which he claimed from the respondents, Who were the defendants in the action, as follows:-

Pleadings having been ordered were duly filed and delivered. After the witnesses of the parties had been heard, learned Counsel of the respondents submitted during his address, inter alia, that the claim should be dismissed because the words complained of were not set out in the writ nor in the Statement of Claim. In his reply to that submission learned Counsel for the appellant contended that it was not mandatory to set out the words complained of in his pleading. The learned trial Judge reserved judgment after he submission of Counsel.

On the day the case was fixed for judgment but before the judgment was delivered, learned Counsel for the appellant by an application by motion, sought leave of the Court to amend the Statement of Claim by setting out therein the words complained of. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application. In his ruling delivered on that day, the learned trial Judge refused the application.

Thereafter the learned Judge proceeded to deliver his judgment in which he dismissed the claim on two grounds. Firstly, the words complained of were not specifically pleaded and secondly, that the words complained of were not defamatory in their natural meaning.

The appeal to this Court is against the ruling refusing the appellant leave to amend his pleading and also against the judgment dismissing his claim.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.