Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 17, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
RULING
This ruling is in respect of an objection raised by Counsel for the Plaintiff against an order this Court made on 27-10-16. The Court on the said date ordered both parties in the case to file their witness statements as well as all the exhibits they intend to tender in the case on or before 11-11-16.
On the said date, Counsel for plaintiff was not in Court when the order was made. However, Counsel for defendant was in Court. The plaintiffs were also in Court.
Counsel for plaintiff contended in his submission before the Court on 16-11-16 as follows:
(a) That the Court erred when she made the said order for witness statements to be filed since directions had already been taken in the case.
(b) That, application for directions was taken on 26-11-2014 by which time C.I 87 (High Court) (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rule 2014, had not come into force.
In the view of Counsel, the order for filing of witness statements can only be made at the application for directions stage. To that effect; once direction was taken before C.I 87 came into force, the Court erred in making the said order Counsel therefore prayed that same should be vacated. Counsel referred the Court to Order 32 rule 7A sub rule 4(2) of C.I 87.
In response, Counsel for defendant submitted that, the Court should always aim at expeditious trial. Therefore the Court was not wrong when the order was made.
I wish to say that the Court is empowered under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323) to control mode and order of interrogation.
Section 69 provides “The Court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to
(a) make the interrogation and presentation as rapid, as distinct and as readily understandable as may be.”
Again Order 38 rule 3 also provides that the Court may at or before the trial of an action, order that evidence of any particular fact shall be given at the trial in such manner as may be specified by the order. The combined effect of the two provisions mean that both Act 323 and C.I. 47 empower the Court to adopt method of taking evidence that would be expeditious with regard to witness statement.
Again our rules on witness statement is subject to the general obligation of the Court as stated in Order 1 (2) of C.I 47 which provides that,
“These rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to achieve speedy and effective justice, avoid delay and unnecessary expenses, and ensure that as far as
AI Generated Summary
The Court addressed an objection by plaintiff’s counsel to a case-management order made on 27-10-2016 requiring both parties to file witness statements and exhibits by 11-11-2016. Counsel argued directions had been taken on 26-11-2014 before C.I. 87 came into force and that witness statements may only be ordered at the directions stage, relying on Order 32 rule 7A(4)(2). Defendant’s counsel opposed, urging expeditious trial. The Court invoked Section 69 of the Evidence Act (Act 323) and Order 38 rule 3 of C.I. 47 to confirm its authority to control how evidence is presented, and cited Order 1(2)’s overriding objective of speedy and effective justice. Emphasizing that witness statements save costs, avoid surprise, and crystallize issues, the Court held that the prior directions did not foreclose its powers. The objection was dismissed and GH¢200 costs were awarded against the plaintiff, payable personally by counsel Mr. Bright Obeng Manu Jnr.