SYNDICATED CAPITAL LIMITED ACCRA NORTH v. UNITY RURAL BANK LIMITED & SERAPHEM SENYO HINIDZAH
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ERIC BAAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Eric Baah of the High Court issued a ruling on an objection to the plaintiff’s witness statement, which had been used as evidence‑in‑chief without verification. Gblorkpor for the 1st defendant argued, citing the 1995 White Book, that the statement was defective and should not have been admitted. Plaintiff’s counsel conceded the omission of a statement of truth but relied on Order 81 of C.I. 47 and the Supreme Court’s Ex parte Allgate decision to argue that the non‑compliance was curable because it did not implicate jurisdiction or natural justice. The court confirmed the statement was unverified, applied Allgate’s framework, and held the defect was remediable. It preserved the evidence, awarded GH¢500 costs to the 1st defendant, granted leave to cross‑examine, and adjourned to enable that cross‑examination.
BY COURT
The new lawyers for the 2nd defendant absent without excuse or justification. The plaintiff has closed its case. The plaintiff was allowed to testify when the defendants and their counsel failed to appear and there was no excuse or justification. By Gblorkpor for the 1st defendant - The witness statement of the plaintiff's witness was not verified. It is essential that the witness statement was verified. So the plaintiff was not properly before the court. I rely on the 1995 edition of the White Book, pages 640-650.
The court should not have admitted a defective wit–ess statement.
By plaintiff’s counsel – We concede that the witness statement of the plaintiff was not verified. It does not have a statement of truth attached. We however rely on Order 81 and the decision in Ex parte Allgate, and submit that the non-compliance is curable by order 81 as it does not go to jurisdiction or the rules of natural justice.
There was a case management conference where the 1st defendant’s counsel should have raised the matter. He did not raise it and for over a year, he has been partaking in proceedings in this court. We pray that the irregularity should not be one that should affect the proceedings. We submit accordingly.
RULING
The 1st defendant’s counsel alleges that the witness statement of the plaintiff’s witness which he relied on as his evidence – in – chief on 20/2/18 was not verified. He contends that the said defect rendered the witness statement unusuable. He relied on the 1995 edition of the White Book, pages 640 – 650. Counsel for the plaintiff however submit that, even though there is indeed no verification of the said witness statement, same is not void and can be saved under Order 81 of C.I. 47. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex parte Allgate Co. Ltd [2007 – 8) SCGLR 104 to buttress his submission that since the irregularity does not go to jurisdiction or breach the rules of natural justice, it is not sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. He called in aid, the conduct of the 1st defendant’s counsel in not raising any complaint at the case management conference or thereafter for over a period of one year.
I have also examined the witness statement of the plaintiff's witness and realised that it was not verified.
The defect complaint about relates to C.I. 47 (as amended) The Supreme Court in the Ex parte Allgate Co. Ltd [2007 – 8] 2 SCGLR 104 held that, all defects within C.I. 47 are remediable except those that amounts to