GHANA INDUSTRIAL HOLDING CORPORATION vs. ATTOK FISHERIES LTD [1976]DLHC389

Date	1976-02-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC389

GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.

E. ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

J. V. M. NTOW FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1976]DLHC389
																																						<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" >GHANA INDUSTRIAL HOLDING CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ATTOK FISHERIES LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 321<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:
17 FEBRUARY 1976.<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">

E. ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

J. V. M. NTOW FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for an amount of ¢12,347.13 (twelve
thousand three hundred and forty-seven cedis thirteen pesewas) as storage
charges for fish kept at the slaughter-house of the plaintiffs’ meat products
division at Tema at the request of the defendants. A former employee of the
defendants having been called by them as a witness; and his
examination-in-chief having been completed, he was being subjected to serious
cross-examination, when the defendants’ counsel objected to the line of
questioning adopted by the counsel for the plaintiffs, particularly to the
following suggestion which was put to the witness: “I seriously put it to you
that some time last year when the writ was pending you suggested to the
plaintiffs’ first witness that if the plaintiff corporation gave you ¢2,000.00,
you would give evidence in its favour?”<o:p></o:p>The said
objection was as follows:<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">“I object
to this question for the following reasons: <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">(1) It
puts the character of the witness seriously in issue; also <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">(2) Since
it is a serious attack on the character of the witness, a foundation should
have been laid; but this has not been done; and <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">(3) I do
not see the relevance of the witness’s character to the plaintiffs’ claim.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiffs,
counsel also replied thus:<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">“The
question objected to is a question put under cross-examination and I have been
under the impression within my comparatively short period of practice that
under cross-examination any type of question can be asked. I have never known a
rule that demands that if a question makes a serious attack against the
character of a witness it should not be asked. I have also not known that
without laying foundation in examination-in-chief a question cannot be asked
under cross-examination. I can safely say that since at the beginning of the
case for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have not been in possession of the list
of possible witnesses to be called by the defendants, it is just not possible
for the plaintiffs to lay the foundation for all matters; and it is my
respectful submission that in this particular case since the plaintiffs’
representative did not know and could not have known that this witness would be
giving evidence, he could not have talked about this particular matter. On the
question of relevance, I respectfully say that the credibility of a witness is
always in issue, and therefore any matter that will help the court to assess
the credibility of the witness is relevant and should be permitted.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now the
general rule is that he who asserts a fact must prove it; also it is trite
learning that where a party in his pleadings makes statements that are capable
of being proved, then it is not enough for him to take the witness-box and
repeat those averments, but he has to prove them; and if only the two parties
to a suit give evidence, then all that is before the court is the oath of the
one against that of the other.<o:p></o:p>Of
course, there is no rule of law providing that in no instance and under no
circum- stances whatsoever can the court accept the evidence of a party to a
suit as aga</main>