GODFRED NII ARMAH TAGOE VS SUCCOTH LIMITED & ORS
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The judgment clarifies that the report submitted by a Court Expert Witness is deemed admitted as evidence without formal introduction by a party. This procedure is governed by Order 26 of C. I. 47. Moreover, if a party wishes to cross-examine the Expert Witness, they must apply within 14 days after being served with the report. Failing to apply means the report is accepted as evidence without further action.
Order 36 (8) speaks in general terms in respect of documents tendered as exhibits and cannot override Order 26 of C. I. 47 which deals specifically with the Court Expert Witness.
The authorities cited by learned Counsel, all relate to proceedings under the old High Court Rules, LN 140 A of 1954. Order 26 of C. I. 47 is a novel provision and as noted by the learned Judge and writer, Sir Dennis Adjei at page 223 of his book (Land Law Practice and Conveyancing 3rd Edition). The learned author further stated at page 222 thus: “The Report by the Court Expert is deemed to be evidence admitted by the Court without any formal introduction by the Court or a party.
The Expert is not required to give evidence unless a party who is served with a copy of the Expert’s Report applies to the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of the Report that the expert must appear in Court to be cross-examined.
The Court after hearing the application may order that the Expert be cross-examined by the parties either at the trial or before an examiner at such time and place as may be specified in the Order.
The Expert who is called is neither led in evidence – in – chief nor re-examined. ” The current position of the law was espoused in ABUDULAI BRAIMAH VRS. ADISAGBANKULSL [2016] 92 GMJ 107 AT PAGE 118 by the Court of Appeal thus: “Having agreed on the Expert Witness and having received a copy of the Report of the Expert Witness, if Counsel for the Appellant desired to cross-examine the witness even though the witness did not give evidence in Court, there was an avenue opened to him which he did not take advantage of.
Since there is no indication that Counsel for the Appellant applied to Court to cross-examine the said witness, the Report was rightly deemed to have been in evidence without formal introduction by the Court or any party and also without any objection. ” In the circumstance, I am unable to agree with learned Counsel on his submission that the Surveyor should tender his Report formally for it to be marked when it is already deemed to be in evidence by the operation of law.
(SGD. ) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.