GOMOAH vs. ETUAFUL [1960]DLHC314

Date	1960-05-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLHC314

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.

R. J. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR PLAINTIFF.

ABADOO FOR DEFENDANT.

[1960]DLHC314
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >GOMOAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ETUAFUL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1960] GLR 138<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
30TH MAY, 1960.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

R. J. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>(His
Lordship referred to the facts and continued).<o:p></o:p>There is
however one matter of some importance which has made it necessary to give this
considered written judgment-and that is whether the defendant-respondent was
liable to be sued at all for anything said in the course of testifying as a witness
in a court of law.<o:p></o:p>The
position in English law has been explained in a number of leading cases, and it
will be sufficient to refer to only one, namely, Watson v. M’Ewan and Watson v.
Jones ([1905] A.C. at p.486) in which Halsbury L.C. said:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“By
complete authority, including the authority of this House, it has been decided
that the privilege of a witness, the immunity from responsibility in an action
when evidence has been given by him in a Court of justice, is too well
established now to be shaken. Practically I may say that in my view it is
absolutely unarguable—it is settled law and cannot be doubted. The remedy
against a witness who has given evidence which is false and injurious to
another is to indict him for perjury; but for very obvious reasons, the conduct
of legal procedure by Courts of justice, with the necessity of compelling
witnesses to attend, involves as one of the necessities of the administration
of justice the immunity of witness from actions being brought against them in
respect of evidence they have given. So far the matter, I think, is too plain
for argument.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Our
native courts (now local courts) are creatures of statute like the High Court
and their procedure, at least so far as formal trial involving the use of
witnesses is concerned is identical with the procedure of trial in the High
Court and it appears to me that this fundamental principle as to the immunity
of witnesses must apply to witnesses who give evidence before them also, i.e.,
the local courts. It follows that if nothing else happens beyond the mere
giving of evidence, no right of action can arise against the witness for
anything which he said whilst giving evidence. In my view it is only where
possibly a claim to land made whilst giving evidence is repeated or insisted on
after the person has ceased to be a witness, that the party disputing the claim
can and may have his cause of action. In the case with which we are dealing
however, nothing further appears to have happened after the evidence in court
and there does not appear to have been a repetition out of court of the words
complained of and it seems to me therefore that the plaintiff-appellant had no
right of action against the defendant-respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On that
ground also, apart from the merits, I think the appeal was doomed to failure,
and counsel took the only proper and honourable step in applying to withdraw
it. It is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs £5 5s. to counsel for
defendant-respondent.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>