GHANA POST COMPANY LTD. vs. JAMES SUALAH BOSSMAN & MS. CECILIA FOLY [2006]DLCA6472

Date	2006-06-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/325/05
Citation No.	[2006]DLCA6472

TWENEBOA-KODUA JA [PRESIDING]

ADDO JA

QUAYE JA

MR PETER DEI OFEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/J-CREDITOR/APPELLANT

MR. BEN BALURI SAIBU FOR THE DEFENDANT/J-DEBTOR/RESPONDENT

[2006]DLCA6472
																																						<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 POST COMPANY LTD.<o:p></o:p>(CREDITOR/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JAMES SUALAH BOSSMAN &amp; MS. CECILIA FOLY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT-DEBTOR)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: H1/325/05&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;DATE:&nbsp;&nbsp; 23RD JUNE, 2006<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>

MR
PETER DEI OFEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/J-CREDITOR/APPELLANT <o:p></o:p>

MR.
BEN BALURI SAIBU FOR THE DEFENDANT/J-DEBTOR/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>TWENEBOA-KODUA JA [PRESIDING], ADDO JA, QUAYE JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>TWENEBOA-KODUA,
JA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an interlocutory appeal from the
ruling of the High Court, Tamale. The said ruling delivered on 29 April 2004
was occasioned by an objection taken by the plaintiff/appellant {simply called
plaintiff hereinafter} to the admissibility of a supplementary affidavit in an
interpleader claim. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff had
successfully sued the defendant and had embarked on the process of execution of
the said judgment. In that process the plaintiff had caused property in the
nature of a plot of land with an uncompleted building thereon and described as
Number 294, Block "B" Chogu Tepalsi at Tamale to be attached. To the
victorious plaintiff, the property belonged to the vanquished defendant.<o:p></o:p>As next friend of Prince
Naamah Bossman {a minor} the claimant soon filed a notice of interpleader
claim. In the supporting affidavit, the Claimant swore that the afore-mentioned
minor is the issue of the marriage between the claimant and the defendant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The claimant, who is the respondent on appeal,
also disclosed on oath the steps she took to acquire the attached property for
the minor. She supported her claim with numerous exhibits: {'A' to 'l'}. <o:p></o:p>On 17 February 2004, a
supplementary affidavit in support of the claim in the interpleader proceedings
was filed. It had been sworn to by one Tahiru Dagimma who identified himself as
the "law clerk/interpreter to Halaali Chambers, Tamale who are Solicitors
for the claimant."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This deponent went on to swear, inter alia, as
follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"3. That I have the authority of both my
employers and client to depose to this affidavit on their joint behalf, the
matters deposed to having come to my knowledge in the course of discharging my
lawful duties.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"5. That throughout that affidavit {ie an
earlier affidavit}, she described herself as 'CECILIA FOLI.'<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"6. That even though she is married to
one James Suala Bossman and now bears the name 'Mrs Cecilia Bossman' she
nevertheless also has 'Cecilia Foli' on some of her official and private
documents.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"7. That in her supporting affidavit of
16 June 2003, she inadvertently omitted to depose to the fact that she is also
known as 'Mrs Cecilia Bossman.'<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"8. That the claimant now says that
'Cecilia Foli' and 'Mrs Cecilia Bossman' both refer to one and the same
person."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The plaintiff raised an objection to the
foregoing depositions as being inadmissible hearsay and founded the objection
on grounds as follows:— <o:p></o:p>"i. That the deponent to the
supplementary affidavit filed on 17 February 2004 lacked capacity to swear the
affidavit.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ii. That the affidavit contained facts which
the deponent is not able of his own knowledge to prove as required by Order 36
{sic}rule 3, High Court {Civil Procedure} Rules, 1954 {L.N.140A}<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;iii. That the deponent could not be in a
position to give the ground and sources of information regarding the issue at
stake i.e. whether or not Ms Cecilia Foli is the same as Mrs Cecilia Bossman as
contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 17/2/04
as could be found at page 27 of the Record of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>iv. That the authority to swear the
affidavit must emanate from parties who have interest in the case like the
plaintiff, the defendant or the claimant. <o:p></o:p>v. That the affidavit should
ordinarily be in the first person but in this particular case, the
supplementary affidavit is in the third person making the facts deposed to
hearsay." <o:p></o:p>After very exhaustive
argument by counsel on both sides, the Learned High Court Judge delivered
himself in a brief ruling quoted in extenso thus:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"By Court:- having listened to the submission
made by respective Counsel for the plaintiff and the claimant, it is my view
that in the greatest interest of justice, legal objections raised by counsel
for the plaintiff Judgm</main>