Try asking the following...
CONCURRING OPINION
ANTHONY OPPONG, JA:
I have had the privilege of reading the opinion of my sister Justice Cyra Pamela Koranteng (Mrs.) to which my brother Justice Dr. Owusu Dapaah has subscribed and I am in entire agreement with her reasoning and conclusion. I however consider that I should express myself in amplification of one or two matters.
The first point has to do with affidavits that are made to support applications in the courts. It is trite that applications that are made before the courts are so done through motions and such motions invariably are accompanied by affidavits that should contain only facts that the affiant or the deponent can prove unless there is an otherwise a provision in the rules of court that permits a statement of information or belief or both with the source of the information and the grounds of the belief.
The success or otherwise of a motion depends invariably on the strength of the facts deposed to in an affidavit and so it is important to observe that the truthfulness of facts deposed to in an affidavit must be such as could be vouched for by the deponent and that underlies the significance of the fact that where the affidavit contains a statement of information, the source of that information must be disclosed and similarly where the affidavit contains a statement of belief the ground of that belief must also be disclosed.
Indeed, affidavits are legally required to be expressed in the first person by a named individual person who could be called upon to answer legal charges like perjury if any matter deposed to in an affidavit turns to be false in material particular.
In other words, an affidavit is a sworn statement or promise tied to a specific person called the affiant or the deponent. What this means is that it would be palpably wrong for an affidavit to be signed by someone purporting to sign for and on behalf of the deponent. Indeed, Order 20 rule 4(6) of C.I. 47 mandatorily requires an affidavit to be signed by the deponent and not by any other person.
In the court below, the application that the appellant filed under Order 11 rule 18(1)(d) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C.I.47 found at page 18 of ROA was, of course, accompanied by a supporting affidavit purportedly deposed to by one Dawudu Hamidu. One wonders whether this named Dawudu Hamidu is the 2nd defendant or not. This is because as a party to the suit where he was required to state his residential address, it was stated that he lives