DR. MARGARET DUAH ATUAHENE vs THE MANAGER, BEMKOFF HOTEL

I have heard the parties. Counsel for Plaintiff/Applicant has filed this application to set aside the order of the court made on 20/3/2025 and to re-call plaintiff’s witness pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

In sum, the gravamen of this instant application is that the plaintiff witness (PW1) was for continuation of cross examination but failed /and or neglected to attend court despite several adjournments. The counsel for Plaintiff on one such adjournment informed the court the witness is gone out of jurisdiction to his brother in Nigeria. Though the witness (PW1) had not been discharged from the witness box he had been absent from court since the 10th of July 2024 and despite several adjournments had failed and or neglected to attend court to complete the cross examination. In the circumstance the evidence of PW1 was expunged from the records on 20th March 2025. The Counsel for plaintiff then informed the court he wishes to close plaintiff’s case. The case was adjourned for the defendant to open his defence. Subsequently, the plaintiff has brought this instant application to set aside the order of the court dated 20/3/2025 and to re-call plaintiff’s witness pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The court heard both parties. The parties opined as follows:

Counsel for Plaintiff– We have a motion on notice to set aside the order of the court and to re-call plaintiff’s witness pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court. I move in terms of the motion paper, the supporting affidavit and the annexure attached. The ruling of the court on the 20/3/2025, the court expunged the witness statement of the witness of plaintiff because the witness had failed to come to court to continue with his evidence. The witness by the frantic effort of the plaintiff is willing to come and continue his evidence and therefore we are seeking the court order to set aside its earlier ruling and for the plaintiff’s witness to be recalled and for the defendant also to end his cross examination. We pray accordingly.

Counsel for Defendant- We are opposed to this application not on the fact of the application but on the grounds of law. We do not know which inherent authority this court is allowed to hear this application as counsel concedes and has attached. There was a ruling on this matter by the Honourable Court. It is trite that where there is a ruling of a particular case in the High court, the court does not have the inherent jurisdi