Kwantreng II v Klu

ADDAE JSC.

The High Court gave judgment in this case on 23/4/75. An appeal against that judgment was decided by the Court of Appeal on 19/7/90. Dissatisfied with that decision, the plaintiff appealed to this court. In conformity with the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (CI 13) r 13(1) the plaintiff-appellant filed his statement of case on 27/4/92. The defendant-respondent filed his statement of case on 28/5/92. The plaintiff-appellant did not file a reply (see CI 13 r 13(5)). The appeal was set down for hearing on the 23/9/93. It was then adjourned to 30/3/93. On the 25/3/93, the appellant filed a supplementary statement of case. That statement argued, inter alia, that in 1982 a sub-committee of the National Investigations Committee was set up under section 2(2) of the National Investigations Law 1982 (PNDCL 2) to investigate certain matters claimed to be relevant to the subject-matter of the present appeal. After sixty sittings during which the sub-committee heard 120 witnesses the sub-committee submitted its report to the NIC, which in turn submitted it to the PNDC. Paragraph 3 of the plaintiff-appellant’s supplementary statement states:

“3 The PNDC accepted the report and recommendation of the said committee and issued a press statement to that effect on 14/2/86, signed by Mr Ato Dadzie, Secretary to the PNDC Secretariat.”

The supplementary statement has attached to it, extensive extracts from the report of the NIC as well as the press release (at times referred to as White Paper) on the report .

The defendant, by the present application, is asking this court to “strike out and expunge the supplementary statement of the appellants’ case with the attachments filed on 25/3/93 on the main ground that:

“9…the said report of the sub-committee, the Government-paper attached to the supplementary statement and the facts in the supplementary statement filed are not evidence in this case and do not form part of the record of appeal.”

The defendant says in paragraph 5 of his affidavit that the sub-committee sat and completed its work before the Court of Appeal heard the appeal and gave judgment. This point is conceded by Mr Adjatey, for the plaintiff, adding that the sub-committee began its work after the institution of the suit in the High Court, but completed its work after the judgment of the High Court; and as stated by the defendant, before the hearing of the appeal by the Court of Appeal.

Mr Adjatey however says, argui