[2018]DLHC3968 • July 27, 2018 • High Court
ALS MINERALS/GEOCHEMISTRY vs. OWERE MINES LIMITED
The plaintiff company commenced an action to recover an alleged debt from the defendant. Before trial, the plaintiff filed a witness statement by one Godfrey Owusu Ansah, who described himself as the accounts administrator/chief accountant of the plaintiff company and stated that he had the company’s consent and authority to testify for and on its behalf. The defendant objected on the ground that the plaintiff had earlier executed a power of attorney in favour of Global Debt Trackers authorising it, without express limitation, to demand, recover, institute and defend legal proceedings in respect of the debt. The defendant therefore contended that, while that power of attorney remained unrevoked, an officer of the plaintiff company lacked capacity to testify on behalf of the plaintiff in the action. The court accepted that objection in part. Portion of judgment: “The said statement was given on behalf of the Plaintiff company… since the plaintiff company has given a power of attorney to Global Debt Trackers to institute this action on its behalf and the said power of attorney has not been revoked, Godfrey Owusu Ansah as an officer of the company cannot testify on behalf of the company.”
read moreThis ruling is in respect of a preliminary legal matter raised by counsel for the defendant. Counsel for the defendant has taken aim at the witness statement given and filed by one Godfrey Owusu Ansah who described himself as the Chief Accountant of the Plaintiff company. The said statement was given on behalf of the Plaintiff company. Counsel’s objection is that the since the plaintiff company has given a power of attorney to Global Debt Trackers to institute this action on its behalf and the said power of attorney has not been revoked, Godfrey Owusu Ansah as an officer of the company cannot testify on behalf of the company. Counsel cited the case of Kofi Oduro v Cynthia Okyere (2014) 69 GMJ 108 to 109 and submitted that since there is no limitation on the authority of the attorney to act and no provision is made in the power of attorney for the plaintiff to act while the instrument is still in existence, it is wrong for the plaintiff to act through its officer. He therefore invite.....