Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
October 13, 1961
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
"A practice seems to have grown up in some of the local courts of the parties filing something in the nature of pleadings and relying upon [p.569] those statements as the evidence in the case, so that apart from answers which a party gives under cross-examination, the parties themselves do not give evidence in the case. Still worse, the said statements are not incorporated in the record of proceedings, and so the appellate court does not know the facts upon which a judgment of the local court is based. That practice has manifested itself clearly in these proceedings. It is a bad practice which must be stopped. In this connection reference should be made to regulation 29 of the Local Courts Procedure Regulations, 1959 and to section 10 of the Oaths Act, 1960, (C.A. 12). Regulation 81 reads as follows:
“Every witness shall be put on such oath as he declares to be binding upon him, but if he objects to swearing any oath he shall affirm that the evidence he is about to give is the truth. The fact that the witness has taken the oath or has affirmed shall be written in the Record Book”;
and section 10 of the Oaths Act, 1960 (C.A. 12) also provides as follows:
“10. No person shall be convicted or judgment given upon the uncorroborated evidence of a person who shall have given his evidence without oath or affirmation”.
The combined effect of these two provisions in our laws is that a statement filed by a party to a suit is not evidence, and a court should not act upon it. If a party wishes the contents of a statement he files to be considered as part of his evidence in the case, he has to repeat the whole of the contents of that statement on oath. The court should not base any decision upon such a statement which is merely filed."
AI Generated Summary
OLLENNU J addressed a recurring procedural problem observed in local courts: parties filing statements resembling pleadings and treating them as evidence, while avoiding giving sworn testimony. In the case before him, the statements were not incorporated into the record, leaving the appellate court unable to ascertain the factual basis for the local court’s judgment. Citing the Local Courts Procedure Regulations, 1959 (including Regulation 81) and the Oaths Act, 1960 (C.A. 12), section 10, the judge emphasized that witness testimony must be delivered on oath or affirmation and that the record must reflect it. He concluded that filed statements are not evidence and that courts should not base decisions on them; if parties want such content considered, it must be repeated on oath. He condemned the practice as bad and directed that it be stopped.