BENJAMIN YAW OSEI v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE & OTHERS
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- P. K. GYAESAYOR J.A (PRESIDING)
- AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A
- TANKO AMADU J.A
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal concerns a High Court ruling admitting Exhibit 4, challenged by the Appellant for lack of authentication and potential unfair prejudice. The Court of Appeal found Exhibit 4 relevant and properly authenticated under the Evidence Act, making it admissible. The appellant's fear of unfair prejudice was deemed unfounded as the portions relating to him were clear. The admission of duplicated evidence was also upheld. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the case was remitted to the High Court for continuation.
AVRIL LOVELACE JOHNSON (J.A);
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court delivered on 26th April 2018. By the said ruling, the Court overruled the objection of counsel for the Appellant’s objection to the admission into evidence of the Exhibit 4 of the Respondents and admitted it into evidence.
Eleven grounds of appeal were filed with the eleventh one (k) being that the ruling in question is against the weight of evidence. These grounds are
a) The learned High Court judge erred at the case management level when he declared as admissible evidence the purported official report (marked as exhibit 4) attached to witness statement of Samuel Boakye Yiadom, witness for the Defendants dated December 11, 2017 despite the written preliminary objections of the Plaintiff/Appellant filed on February 5, 2018 against the admissibility of the evidence.
b) The learned High Court judge erred when he failed to consider the Plaintiff/Appellant’s written preliminary objection filed on 5/2/18 against the admissibility of a purported official report marked as exhibit 4 attached to the witness statement of Samuel Boakye Yiadom, witness for the Defendants/Respondents dated December 11, 2017.
c) The learned High Court Judge erred when he admitted in evidence exhibit 4 as a report of the Disciplinary Committee of the Judicial Council on the enquiry of the Plaintiff/Appellant which said exhibit 4 is full of prejudice information of other people posing substantial danger of unfair prejudice to the Plaintiff/Appellant’s case.
d) The learned High Court Judge erred in his ruling at the case management level when he ruled that exhibit 4 contains information of other people but he has admitted it in evidence as a report on the Plaintiff/Appellant with the view to suo moto deleting the prejudicial materials therein by way of redaction.
e) The learned High Court Judge erred in law when he admitted in evidence exhibit 4 as an official report without recourse to section 148 and 162 of the Evidence Act NRCD 323/75 which mandate that there must be identification, authentication, filing, certification etc. before exhibit 4 could pass the admissibility test.
f) The learned High Court Judge erred when he ruled that one of the issues set for trial is whether or not there was a report based on which the Plaintiff/Appellant was removed from office as judge and so exhibit 4 is automatically relevant and admissible in evidence regardless of the admissibility test prescribed by sectio