MARIAM HUTCHFUL & ANOTHER vs NEW STARS COMPANY LTD
April 3, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE AMOS WUNTAH WUNI
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
April 3, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
On 2nd February 2023 the Defendant’s Witness entered the Witness Box to open Defendant’s Defence. Subsequently, when Counsel for the Defendant prayed this Honourable Court to adopt the Defendant’s Witness Statement and Supplementary Witness Statement (together with their accompanying Exhibits) filed on 16th November, 2020 and 25th March, 2022 respectively as the Defendant’s evidence in chief, Counsel for the Plaintiffs raised two objections to the admissibility of the Witness Statement (and Exhibits) filed on 16th November, 2020 as the testimony of the Witness.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs’ first objection was that, the Witness Statement contains legal terminologies and phrases which cannot be attributed to the Witness. The learned Counsel contended that, the Defendant uses the phrase “material term” in paragraphs 2, 4 and 8 of the Witness Statement; “fundamental obligation” in paragraphs 3, 8 and 16; “condition precedent” and “consideration” in paragraph 4; “patent breach” in paragraph 8; “contractual obligation” in paragraphs 10 and 17; “leasehold property” in paragraph 11 and finally, “accrued equitable interest” in paragraph 13 of the Witness Statement.
The learned Counsel further contended that, under Section 60 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) a Witness is required to testify on matters of personal knowledge and that the use of those legal terminologies and phrases cannot be attributable to the Witness who swore to speak in the Twi Language.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs’ second objection was that, while Exhibit 2 refers to a letter dated 18th February, 2005 (purportedly attached to the Exhibit) there is no such attachment – although there is a letter dated 18th February, 2005 which is annexed as an Exhibit and marked as Exhibit 3 (as a “standing alone” Exhibit). Counsel for the Plaintiff therefore contends that, Exhibit 2 is incomplete, as it is unclear which letter dated 18th February is so referenced and also contends that the Court’s interpretation and understanding of Exhibit 2 would be limited in the absence of the referenced letter dated 18th February, 2005 (and purportedly attached to Exhibit 2).
In response to the objections raised by Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Counsel for the Defendant submits that, the so-called legal terminologies and phrases in the Witness Statement cannot be a basis to impeach the testimony of the Defendant’s Witness.
Counsel for the Defendant maintains that the Witness executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
AI Generated Summary
At the Ghana High Court, presided over by Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni, the defendant’s witness took the stand on 2 February 2023. Defense counsel sought to adopt witness statements dated 16 November 2020 and 25 March 2022, with exhibits, as the witness’s evidence in chief. Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the admissibility of the 16 November 2020 statement and exhibits, asserting that it used legal terms beyond the witness’s personal knowledge—who swore to speak in Twi—and that Exhibit 2 referenced an unattached 18 February 2005 letter. Defense counsel countered that the witness executed a Memorandum of Understanding central to the dispute, used those same terms, and had personal knowledge consistent with Section 60 of the Evidence Act, while any mislabeling went to probative value, not admissibility, especially given Exhibit 3. Applying Section 51 and emphasizing relevance, the court overruled the objections, made no order as to costs, and adjourned the suit.