“I must say that the respondent herein as appellant at the court below may have goofed when it decided to use the name of the appellant herein as originally and inappropriately used at the trial court before the amendment. But was that fatal to the appeal? I do not think so. It is trite that an appeal is a continuation of the case from the court below. It does not initiate a fresh case. As it were, the parties were not in doubt as to the parties to the appeal. Where parties to an appeal are not in doubt but the appeal is wrongly headed, as was done at the court below, it cannot affect the competency of the court to hear the appeal on its merit…”

This is a good decision which further supports the idea that undue technicalities does not meet the ends of justice.