DANIEL KOFI AMEGATSE vs NEWCO CATERING & LOGISTICS & ANOTHER

RULING ON COUNSEL FOR 1ST DEFENDANT’S ORAL APPLICATION FOR THE VALUATION REPORT TO BE STRUCK OUT.

Learned Counsel for 1st Defendant has prayed the Court to strike out a Valuation Report tendered in Court by the subpoenaed witness of Plaintiff and admitted as Exhibit ‘F’.

Her grounds being that she was not served with the said Report.

The Court is however not minded to grant her oral application to strike out the said Exhibit ‘F’.

This is because from the Plaintiff’s Amended Pre-Trial Check List, there is an indication that a Valuer from Intercity STC was going to be subpoenaed.

On 26th January 2023, when Plaintiff was discharged, dates were taken for continuation of the trial in the presence of both Counsel. The dates were 23rd March 2023, 27th March 2023, 28th March, 2023 and 29th March, 2023.

The Court could however not sit on 23rd March, 2023 due to a personal emergency.

However, on 27th March 2023, the Court was informed by Counsel for Plaintiff that Counsel for 1st Defendant had travelled out of the jurisdiction. This fact was admitted by Counsel for 1st Defendant in her application for the said Exhibit to be struck out.

Infact, the Court enquired from 1st Defendant’s representative who was present in Court about the whereabout of his Counsel but he informed the Court that he was unable to get through to her on phone.

The Court proceeded with hearing in the matter because the Court was of the opinion that Counsel being aware of the said hearing dates chose to absent herself from Court without so much of an excuse letter indicating the reason for her absence.

The said Exhibit F was tendered through the subpoenaed witness and had Counsel for 1st Defendant been present in Court on 27th March 2023, she would have objected to the admission of same if she was minded to do so.

As things stand now, the said Exhibit ‘F’ has been admitted in evidence and the option left for Counsel for 1st Defendant is to attack its content whilst cross examining the said subpoenaed witness.

Most importantly, it is for the Court to determine the probative value to be placed on the said Exhibit ‘F’ whilst evaluating the totality of the evidence adduced by Plaintiff at the trial.

It is for this reason that Counsel for 1st Defendant’s oral application for the Court to strike out the said Exhibit ‘F’ is refused.

The matter is therefore adjourned to enable Counsel for Defendant to cross examine the subpoenaed witness.

(SGD)

AFI AGBANU KUDOMOR, J (MRS.)

(JUSTICE OF T