MAHOB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED v. SILVERSTAR AUTO LIMITED & DAIMLER CHRYSLER AG
November 29, 2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
November 29, 2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Kweku T. Ackaah‑Boafo of the High Court ruled on the 1st Defendant’s motion to file a supplementary witness statement and to tender additional evidence in a dispute involving car rental costs and mitigation through acquisition of a Hyundai Elantra. The Defendant, through Mrs. Opoku Amponsah, sought to introduce three categories of material: documents labeled Exhibits 24–26, physical samples of a turbo charger and a speed sensor, and legible replacements for previously tendered job card copies. The Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Sean Poku, did not object to the physical samples or replacements but opposed Exhibits 24–26, emphasizing that they were addressed to non‑parties (including IAK Marketing, Just Link Rent‑A‑Car, PACI Travels, Edee Kay Car Rentals, and Jas Hammond), were dated in 2018 rather than 2012–2014, and could not be tendered by Ahmed Farouk under Section 60. Applying Sections 51, 52, and 60 of the Evidence Act and the principles of relevance and personal knowledge, the Court dismissed the admission of Exhibits 24–26, granted the other reliefs, and awarded costs of Gh₵750.00 to each Plaintiff.
RULING
Defendant’s Motion to File Supplementary Witness Statement
i. The Applicant’s Case:
[1] This Court’s ruling of July 9, 2018 is what has undoubtedly triggered the instant application by the 1st Defendant. This is an application by Counsel for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant herein praying for leave to file supplementary witness statement.
[2] The main thrust of the application is that during the cross-examination of the Plaintiff/Respondent’s witness in May 2018, the Respondent sought leave to file a Supplementary Witness Statement to introduce documentary evidence related to the “proof of the alleged purchase of a Hyundai Elantra and documents purporting to be evidence of vehicle rental”. According to the Applicant herein though it opposed the application on the grounds that it was seeking to fill in the gaps in the evidence, the Court granted the application. It is deposed that “the alleged documents contrary to the Respondent’s assertion was not in Respondent’s possession the reason for the failure to put them in evidence earlier”.
[3] It is deposed that “given the late entry of these documents/evidence, Applicant could not reasonably bring any documentary evidence to challenge these pieces of evidence at the time as it was almost at the close of its cross-examination session”. In the light of that Applicant says it has “since been able to procure documentary evidence to challenge the documentary evidence introduced by Respondent”. The Applicant is therefore by this instant application praying the Court that “in the interest of justice and to assist this Honourable Court make a determination on the documentary evidence tendered by the Respondent”, the Applicant should also be permitted to attach certain documents marked as Exhibits KAB and for same to be relied upon at trial. The Applicant also prays to tender in evidence samples of a speed sensor with its cable as well as a Turbo Charger. The Applicant further seeks leave to replace “photocopies of pages of already tendered Job cards which were not legible”.
[4] Arguing in support of the motion, learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant/Applicant referred to the depositions in the affidavit in support and submitted that the Applicant’s prayer is in threefold. First, the Applicant seeks leave to adduce further evidence by way of documents marked as Exhibit 24 and 25 Series attached to the proposed Supplementary Witness Statement. Second, the Applicant seeks leave to tender certain par