Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 17, 1976
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.
In this case, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for an amount of ¢12,347.13 (twelve thousand three hundred and forty-seven cedis thirteen pesewas) as storage charges for fish kept at the slaughter-house of the plaintiffs' meat products division at Tema at the request of the defendants. A former employee of the defendants having been called by them as a witness; and his examination-in-chief having been completed, he was being subjected to serious cross-examination, when the defendants' counsel objected to the line of questioning adopted by the counsel for the plaintiffs, particularly to the following suggestion which was put to the witness: "I seriously put it to you that some time last year when the writ was pending you suggested to the plaintiffs' first witness that if the plaintiff corporation gave you ¢2,000.00, you would give evidence in its favour?"
The said objection was as follows:
"I object to this question for the following reasons:
(1) It puts the character of the witness seriously in issue; also
(2) Since it is a serious attack on the character of the witness, a foundation should have been laid; but this has not been done; and
(3) I do not see the relevance of the witness's character to the plaintiffs' claim."
[p.492]
The plaintiffs, counsel also replied thus:
“The question objected to is a question put under cross-examination and I have been under the impression within my comparatively short period of practice that under cross-examination any type of question can be asked. I have never known a rule that demands that if a question makes a serious attack against the character of a witness it should not be asked. I have also not known that without laying foundation in examination-in-chief a question cannot be asked under cross-examination. I can safely say that since at the beginning of the case for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have not been in possession of the list of possible witnesses to be called by the defendants, it is just not possible for the plaintiffs to lay the foundation for all matters; and it is my respectful submission that in this particular case since the plaintiffs' representative did not know and could not have known that this witness would be giving evidence, he could not have talked about this particular matter. On the question of relevance, I respectfully say that the credibility of a witness is always in issue, and therefore any matter that will help the court to assess the cr
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns a dispute over storage fees for fish kept at the Tema slaughter-house operated by the plaintiffs’ meat products division, for which the plaintiffs sought ¢12,347.13 from the defendants. During trial, the defendants called a former employee as a witness. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Adjetey, in cross-examination suggested the witness had sought ¢2,000 to testify favorably for the plaintiff corporation while the writ was pending. Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Ntow, objected that the question attacked the witness’s character, lacked foundation, and was irrelevant. Griffiths-Randolph J. set out the broad scope of cross-examination aimed at testing credibility, the court’s discretion to exclude vexatious or irrelevant questions, and the witness’s immunity from self-incrimination. Applying these principles, the judge overruled the objection, permitted the question, warned the witness he need not answer, and made no order as to costs.