CHRISTIAN ADU-AMANING vs. THE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. GH. LTD. [2010]DLHC5648

Date	2010-02-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO: INDL/07/09
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC5648

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. LARRY OTU FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

MR. DAVID ASIEDU WITH MR. ERIC AGUDAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT

[2010]DLHC5648
																																						<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" >CHRISTIAN ADU-AMANING<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. GH. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT NO: INDL/07/09&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;&nbsp;DATE: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. LARRY OTU FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

MR.
DAVID ASIEDU WITH MR. ERIC AGUDAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT<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 1.0pt 0in">

JUSTICE KWABENA
ASUMAN-ADU<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
ruling is in respect of an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff on 20th
November, 2009 for an order for him to be re-called to give evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The main
reason for the application is that, it has come to his notice that there were
some documents which he should have tendered in evidence at the time he was
giving his evidence-in-chief but at that time he did not have access to those
documents which he has now got. According to him when these documents are
brought to the attention of the Court they will assist the court to properly
determine the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant
opposed the application in an Affidavit in Opposition filed on behalf of the Defendant
on 24th November, 2009 on two main grounds. The first one being that,
the Supporting Affidavit contains only bare averments and the second one being
that the application falls short of the law and practice laid down for judges
to consider in exercising their discretion whether or not to grant an
application to recall a witness.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In moving
the motion, counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant submitted that subsequent to
the Plaintiff having testified before the Court, some documents relevant to the
determination of the suit have come to his possession. So, for the proper
adjudication of this matter, it is very pertinent that these documents be
brought to the attention of the Court, hence this application. He referred the
Court to Section 79 of the Evidence Act
1975 (NRCD 323)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
reply, counsel for the Defendant/Respondent contends that the fact that a party
can apply to recall a witness is supported by Section 79 of the Evidence Act, but how it must be done is not
shown by the Evidence Act. Rather, that is found in case law. He as a result
referred the court to the case of Kpekata
vrs Commissioner of Police (1963) 1 GLR 398 at 401.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He goes
on to submit that from that case, there are two grounds to recall a witness.
The first is to explain something the witness has already said in evidence and
the second one is what the Supreme Court described as very essential
circumstances in the interest of justice which is not explained by the Supreme
Court in the case. However, it is explained in the Modern Law of Evidence as
where a matter of significance emerges later in a trial after the witness had
given evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
submits further that even though a judge has discretion to recall a witness,
before that can be done, the judge should be given the chance by the Applicant
to examine or evaluate the nature of the evidence. So for the Plaintiff/Applicant
to come before the Court and say there was evidence, he should have put in, but
he did not have it at the time he gave evidence without telling the Court the
nature of the evidence, amounts to blindfold</main>