REVEREND KEN YAO DZOTEPE VS RT REVEREND DR. LT COL. B. D. K AGBEKO (RTD)
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- H/L JUSTICE YAW OWOAHENE-ACHEAMPONG J.
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On 26/03/2024, during a trial, the plaintiff's second witness attempted to submit an unsigned and unauthenticated document as exhibit 'U'. The defendant's counsel objected, citing the document's lack of proper custody and authentication. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the document was relevant to the case and referred to a previous ruling (NANA ADDO DANQUAH & ORS V JOHN D. MAHAMA) that favored the admission of relevant evidence regardless of its procurement. However, the court noted the document's deficiencies—in particular, its lack of signature, date, and author, and upheld the defendant's objection, rejecting the document as exhibit 'U' and marking it as exhibit 'R'.
On 26/03/2024 Plaintiff’s 2 nd witness (Pw2) in giving evidence in support of the Plaintiff’s case, sought to tender a document in evidence as exhibit ‘U’Counsel for the defendant raised an objection to the tendering of the intended document to be tendered in evidence as exhibit U. Counsel for the defendant was that the document seeking to be tendered is unsigned and also unauthenticated.
Counsel for the defendant premised his augment further that there was nothing to show that the document was coming from proper custody because, according to counsel for the defendant, Pw2, is not a member of standing committee.
From all the above, counsel for defendant prays the intended document seeking to be tendered must be rejected.
In a swift rebuttal of the foregoing submissions by counsel for the defendant, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, they have laid a foundation of the intended document to tendered in their paragraph ‘C’ of their witness statement that the intended document afore-referred was part of series of documents they would rely upon at the trial.
Counsel for the plaintiff argues further that even though they intended document was unsigned, they have managed to procure the same since according to counsel for the plaintiff that document is relevant in the instant case.
Counsel for the plaintiff referred the court to the case of NANA ADDO DANQUAH & ORS V JOHN D. MAHAMA case, that if the evidence seeking to be tendered was relevant it does not matter how the same was procured.
The document seeking to be tendered is entitled “briefing on Rev.
Dr. Lt.
Col B. D. K. Agbeko by the standing committee”. A critical perusal of the said document will show that the author of the document was not named and the document is truly unsigned.
Again, apart from the document referring to series of dates, the document itself remains undated.
I think that in general terms it is quite dangerous for one to sign a blank cheque.
In the instant matter I think that is would also be dangerous to admit in evidence a document to which its author is unknown.
I think that, in the instant matter the rules of evidence on relevancy is rather inapplicable.
Because the person who signed the document must be a known individual, who so that he may be called upon to be cross-examined on his own deed.
From the above, I agree perfectly with counsel for the defendant that the document seeking to be tendered, as exhibit ‘U’ is hereby marked as exhibit ‘R’. The objection is the