SCANCOM PLC VS JOSHOB CONSTRUCTION LTD & ANOR
November 2, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH J. (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
November 2, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
At the Ghana High Court, Her Ladyship Akua Sarpomaa Amoah (Mrs.) ruled on an evidentiary objection in a civil suit concerning alleged persistent cutting of fibre optic cables. Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants challenged the tendering of documents referenced in the witness statement of the Plaintiff’s witness, Bernard Avorexhibits B3, B4, B5, B9, C and C1arguing the documents were irrelevant because the Plaintiff’s pleadings, particularly paragraph 13 of its amended statement of claim, identified specific roads where the 1st Defendant’s cable cutting allegedly occurred, not the roads covered by the impugned exhibits. The Plaintiff countered that the documents demonstrated permits to lay cables in the areas discussed. Applying section 51(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), the Court held that evidence must relate to the issues raised by the pleadings and rejected the exhibits, marking them R1 to R6.
Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants object to the tendering of documents referred to in the witness statement of Plaintiff’s witness Bernard Avor as exhibits B3, B4, B5, B9, C and C1 respectively. The basis for the said objection is that the said documents are irrelevant to the issues for determination in the instant suit. Counsel refers this Court to paragraph 13 of the Plaintiff’s amended statement of claim which sets out specifically the roads in respect of which the 1st Defendant is alleged to have engaged in the persistent cutting of the Plaintiff’s fibre optic cables. No mention, Counsel for Defendants contend, was made by the Plaintiff in its pleadings, of the roads mentioned in the impugned exhibits.
In response, Counsel for Plaintiff maintains that the said exhibits are relevant as they seek to prove that the Plaintiff obtained permits to lay the cables in the areas referred to in the said exhibits.
By section 51(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. I do not think evidence can be said to be relevant unless it relates to the issues raised by the pleadings. Put differently evidence offered in proof of an unpleaded matter stands to be rejected. I agree with Counsel for the 1st Defendant that any evidence sought to be tendered in proof of the fact that the Plaintiff obtained permits to lay the cables must relate specifically to the roads, the subject matter of the instant suit.
No mention was made of the roads to which Exhibits B3, B4, B5, B9, C and C1 relate in Plaintiffs pleadings. Consequently I fail to see the relevance of the said documents to the issues before this Court.
The objection is therefore upheld and the said exhibits are rejected and marked R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6.
(SGD)
AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS).
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT