Before this Court is an Application to recall Plaintiff’s Witness, Emmanuel Rest Tettekpe to tender certain documents. The 1st Defendant is not opposed to the Application. The 2nd Defendant, however, opposes same in earnest.
In order to fully appreciate the contentions of the parties, a brief summary of the facts leading to present controversy becomes necessary.
They are as follows; on the 1st of March, 2021 Plaintiff’s Witness as part of his evidence in chief, tendered in evidence a number of documents. These documents were admitted without objection by this Court and marked Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F and G
Following this, both Counsel for 1st and 2nd Defendants proceeded to cross –examine the said Witness extensively on his evidence in chief. This cross – examination naturally covered the impugned Exhibits.
The 2nd Defendant however, subsequently filed an application praying this Court to “Exclude All Unstamped Instruments/ Agreements Admitted Into Evidence..” This the 2nd Defendant said was due to the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Section 32(6) of the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689).
Counsel for Plaintiff however raised a preliminary legal objection to the said Application on grounds that this Court was functus officio as far as the said exhibits were concerned. The Plaintiff contended that the 2nd Defendant’s remedy lay in appealing the decision of this Court admitting the same.
This Court upheld the Plaintiff’s preliminary objection and by its ruling (Exhibit PM2) dated the 23rd of May, 2022 stated that:
“Having heard the arguments of both Counsel, I find the objection raised by Counsel for Plaintiff well founded as this Court is functus officio as far as the documents referred to by the 2nd Defendant are concerned. Put differently, this Court having ruled the said documents are admissible and having admitted same in evidence cannot turn around to reject same at this stage.” Objection is therefore upheld” [My emphasis]
I think the above Ruling speaks for itself. This Court neither declared the said exhibits admissible nor said that it was right in admitting same. Its view was that having already ruled on their admissibility and having proceeded to admit same in evidence, it was not permitted to turn round to exclude or reject same “at [that] stage” of the trial. (Brackets supplied).
Counsel for 2nd Defendant at the hearing of the instant application intimated that he disagreed with the said Ruling. I shall however decline any comment o
