OSEI vs. DONKOR [1972]DLHC2403

Date	1972-03-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLHC2403

EDUSEI J.

NTIAMOAH FOR JOE REINDORF FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1972]DLHC2403
																																						<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" >OSEI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>DONKOR <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1972]
2 GLR 45<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:
8 MARCH 1972.<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">

NTIAMOAH FOR JOE REINDORF FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

JAMES MERCER FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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">

EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s solicitor had on 8 January 1972, filed a notice of his intention to
raise preliminary legal points. Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Mercer, has
raised the point that the application is irregular because the application
before the court should have taken the form of a motion paper supported by an
affidavit, and he relied on Orders 25 and 38 (1) of the Supreme [High] Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiff, Mr. Antwi Nimoh, has also contended that his application is
to seek permission of the court to raise the preliminary legal points and the
reason of having the legal points set out in his notice for service on the
opposite side is not to take her by surprise. His application is captioned:
“Notice of Intention to raise Preliminary Legal Point.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order 25,
r. 2 to which Mr. Mercer also referred states: [His lordship here read the
provisions as set out in the headnote and continued:] and counsel argued that
since there has not been any consent between the parties the only proper
procedure was for the plaintiff to come by motion and a supporting affidavit
and not in the way he did. This argument is ingenious; what the plaintiff has
done in this case is to inform the defendant about what he intends doing at the
hearing of the suit. I do not think an affidavit is necessary in such
applications where the points to be argued are of a legal nature. The purpose
of an affidavit is to set out facts upon which a party relies for his
arguments, and I fail to see how legal points are to be set out in an
affidavit. It is in my view quite sufficient if the legal points for argument
are set out in the application, a copy of which is served on the opposite
party. Affidavits are to contain factual matters, and they take the place of
oral evidence in court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Mercer referred the court to Order 38, r. 1. of L.N. 140A, and the said Order
38 (1) is in these words: [His lordship here read the provisions as set out in
the headnote and continued:] The order says “evidence may be given by
affidavit”; it does not say that “evidence shall be given by affidavit.” This
shows that it is not in every application to the court that an affidavit must
support the motion. The use of an affidavit will depend on the circumstances of
the application itself, and in a case like the instant one where the
application is to raise legal points which have been set out in the notice itself
there is no necessity for an affidavit, for as I have already stated the
affidavit is to contain factual as opposed to legal matters.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is of
interest to observe that by Order 34 the parties by consent can state any
questions of law arising in the cause or matter in the form of a special case
for the opinion of the court. In such applications there is no need for an
affidavit: See Chitty’s Queen’s Bench Forms (18th ed.), p. 880. In Order 25, r.
2, the parties by consent can raise any point of law for determination by the
court and I do not suppose that either party is precluded from applying whether
by way of a written or oral application to raise any point of law which may be
set down by the court for hearing and disposed of at any time before trial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I do not
think that Order 25, r. 2 requires the application to be supported by an
aff</main>