JANET AFUA ASANTEWAA SIAW & ORS VS JOSEPH APEADU SIAW & ORS
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiffs' objection to the Defendants' subpoena of the Executive Secretary of the National Identification Authority was overruled by the Court, which found that the Plaintiffs’ failure to address the earlier Notice to Admit contributed to any trial delays. The Court also overruled the objection to the admissibility of proceedings from a different suit, stating that prior inconsistent statements could be used to discredit a witness's testimony. The case references multiple precedents supporting these decisions.
The Plaintiffs’ Counsel has objected to the decision of the 2nd to the 4th Defendants to subpoena the Executive Secretary of the National Identification Authority.
His main reason is that the subpoena would delay the trial as his appearance will not help in resolving the issues before the Court.
According to learned Counsel, the Defendants in issue had earlier served a Notice to Admit on them which they did not answer and by the Rules of Court, the questions posed to them should be deemed to have admitted the facts therein contained.
The Counsel for the 2nd to the 4th Defendants opposed the Application.
The Court finds the basis of the objection untenable.
After the Plaintiffs had failed or refused to admit or deny the facts posed to them, it is strange that they could turn around to talk about delay when their answer could equally have saved the Court’s time if they are minded to have an expeditious trial.
Further, it does not appear to me that the inference that could be drawn from the Rules for failure to admit or deny facts is by itself a fetter to the right of a party to call a witness to put his case across in a more clear way of his choice.
I know of no rule that empowers the Courts to vet the witnesses a party seeks to call once the person being called is fit and capable of testifying.
See NANA AMUAGYEBU XV VRS MONDIAL VENEER GHANA LIMITED [2011] 35 GMJ 164 at page 169 and A. G. AND 10 ORS VRS ANTHONY AND 2 ORS [2015] 86 G. M. J 192 at page 217. There was also an objection to an extract of proceedings in a different suit being sought to be tendered by the Defendants.
I believe the authority of ADWUBENG DOMFEH [1996–97] SC GLR 660, [1997–98] 1 GLR 282 cited by Counsel for the Defendant settles the issue.
To the extent that the statement in the previous suit is being sought to discredit the evidence of a person in this Court, the prior statement is admissible.
Pwamang JSC in MRS. VIVIAN AKU BROWN DANQUAH VRS SAMUEL LANQUAYE ODARTEY, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/4/2026 DATED 29TH JUNE, 2016, SC (UNREPORTED) held thus “earlier inconsistent statement is not by itself evidence of the truth of its contents but may only be used to confront the witness and attach his credibility as to the veracity of his testimony”. In the light of the above, I find both objections unmeritorious and I overrule them.
(SGD. ) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.