2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court considered a novel interlocutory application within a pending appeal over land in Gomoa Afransi. After the 1st Respondent, a grantee of the 2nd Respondent, had been granted leave to adduce fresh evidence asserting that the Government of Ghana acquired the disputed land by Executive Instrument 86 under the State Lands Act and paid compensation to Nana Obranu Gura II, the Applicant sought leave to adduce rebuttal evidence. The majority, per Kulendi JSC, interpreted Rule 76 to permit a party including respondentsto adduce fresh evidence in the interest of justice, and articulated a higher threshold for respondents seeking rebuttal evidence. Emphasizing fairness and the right to cross-examine under the Evidence Act, the Court held the Applicants proposed forensic signature evidence was necessary, relevant, and compelling, and granted the application. Amadu JSC concurred, stressing justice over rigid precedent; Yeboah CJ dissented, warning against reopening cases on second appeal.
DECISION OF THE COURT BY MAJOTITY
KULENDI, JSC:-
This Court on 30th July, 2020, by a unanimous decision, granted the 1st Respondent leave to adduce fresh evidence on Appeal.
The brief facts of this case are that the 1st Respondent is the grantee of the 2nd Respondent. The Applicant issued a writ of summons against the Respondents for, among other reliefs, a declaration of title to land, an order for recovery of possession and special damages for trespass and unlawful possession. The 2nd Respondent in its Defence admitted that it had granted a lease to the 1st Respondent in good faith in the belief that the land, the subject matter of the dispute, formed a part of the larger area vested in the Government of Ghana by reason of Stool Lands (Efutu and Gomoa Ajumako Instrument, 1961 (E.1 206). The 2nd Respondent further stated that upon critical examination of available records, it had come to the realization that the land in dispute is not state-vested land as same falls outside the subject-matter of the area covered by E.1 206. Consequently, the Applicant obtained a judgment against the 1st and 2nd Respondents on these admissions of the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed on the 11th of June, 2019. The 1st Respondent, still dissatisfied with the affirmation of the judgment of the High Court by the Court of Appeal and the dismissal of his Appeal filed a further Appeal to this Court. The 1st Respondent sought and obtained the leave of this Court on the 30th July, 2020 to adduce fresh evidence in the Appeal to demonstrate that the land, the subject matter of dispute, was acquired by the Government of Ghana by Executive Instrument 86 of 7th June, 1969 under the State Lands Act, 1962, (Act 125) and further, that Government, as far back as 6th October 1969 paid compensation for the acquisition to the predecessor of the Applicant, one Nana Obranu Gura II.
Following the grant of leave to the 1st Respondent by this Court and the indication of the documentary evidence that the 1st Respondent proposes to adduce to prove the payment of compensation to the Applicant’s predecessor, the Applicant, in reaction, took out the present application seeking leave of this Court to, in turn, lead fresh evidence to contradict the proposed fresh evidence of the 1st Respondent by demonstrating whether the signatures as appears on the receipts presented as those of Nana Ob