MICHAEL ESSIEN (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. VERALIGHT DELADEM ACKUMEY (DEFENDANT/APPELLANT) [2011]DLCA7934

MICHAEL ESSIEN (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. VERALIGHT DELADEM ACKUMEY (DEFENDANT/A... [2011]DLCA7934

Date	2011-07-14
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/260/10
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA7934

MARIAMA OWUSU JA (PRESIDING)

MARFUL-SAU JA

DENNIS D. ADJEI JA

MAXWELL LOGAN FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

SAM OKUDZETO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2011]DLCA7934
																																						<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" >MICHAEL ESSIEN<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>VERALIGHT DELADEM ACKUMEY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/260/10&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 14TH JULY, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MAXWELL
LOGAN FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SAM
OKUDZETO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>MARFUL – SAU, JA: -
This appeal is taken from the ruling or orders of the High Court (Fast Track
Division) Accra dated the 4th of June 2009. The relevant facts of
the case regarding this appeal would be stated as and when necessary. In the
notice of appeal filed on the 9th of June 2009, appellant formulated
five grounds of appeal, which were all argued together by Counsel for appellant
in his written submission to this court. From the notice of appeal it seems the
appellant main complaint is about two orders or decisions made by the trial
court on the 4th of June, 2009. These complaints are:-<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial court’s upholding
objections raised by counsel for the respondent to questions put to the
respondent during cross-examination regarding previous statements concerning
the purchase of a ring for the ceremony held on 1st October,2005,
made on oath by the respondent in an affidavit in earlier proceedings between
the parties in a court in England;<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial court’s ruling
regarding the cross-examination of the respondent on questions concerning the
viewing of a DVD recording and photographs of the ceremony held on 1st
October, 2005.<o:p></o:p>However,
the five grounds as argued only addressed the first complaint, that is, the
trial court’s refusal to admit questions concerning the respondent’s earlier
statements in an affidavit concerning the purchase of the ring. It seems therefore
that the second complaint was abandoned by the appellant. The entire proceeding
of the 4th of June 2009 covers pages 127 to 153 of the record of appeal. On
that day four different orders were made by the trial court, two of which are
the subject of this appeal. As already observed appellant did not argue the
complaint concerning the viewing of the DVD and the photographs, for that
reason this appeal will be limited to the complaint against the ruling on the
previous statement of the respondent in the court proceedings in England.<o:p></o:p>The
question that has given cause to this appeal is at page 138 and 139 of the
record of appeal and for purposes of sound reasoning I shall reproduce the
salient part of the proceedings below:-<o:p></o:p>Q.
Now, I put it to you that you deposed to an affidavit on the 9th of
November 2007 in the London proceedings?<o:p></o:p>MR.
OKUDZETO: He cannot be cross-examined as to the contents of an affidavit in
another suit. If allowed this would mean adopting the proceedings in the suit
which is not before this court. The English court stayed proceedings in that
case awaiting the outcome of this case.<o:p></o:p>MR.
LOGAN: The objection is misplaced. This is cross-examination which is at large.
The Plaintiff has admitted the proceedings in the English court. It is to
establish the lack of credibility on the part of Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>