SAMUEL ADJEI SORSEY OBLIE vs. MENSAH SOWAH KODIA, ADJEI OKPOTI MASSEY, LANDS COMMISSION [2013]DLHC12142

SAMUEL ADJEI SORSEY OBLIE vs. MENSAH SOWAH KODIA, ADJEI OKPOTI MASSEY, LANDS CO... [2013]DLHC12142

Date	2013-03-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FAL/115/10
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC12142

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

NICK AFESI FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

GK NTONY FOR 1 & 2 DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2013]DLHC12142
																																						<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" >SAMUEL ADJEI SORSEY OBLIE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MENSAH SOWAH KODIA, ADJEI OKPOTI MASSEY, LANDS COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. FAL/115/10&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;DATE: 25TH&nbsp;APRIL 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&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; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The applicant has
prayed the court by motion to as he put it “CALL/RECALL WITNESS” on the grounds
he deposed in the affidavit attached. The said affidavit is a four paragraph
one. The main deposition can be found in paragraphs 2 and 3.<o:p></o:p>In paragraph 2,
the deponent said: <o:p></o:p>“That during the
cause of this trial 1 &amp; 2 deponents amended their statement of defence and
counterclaim to raise some new issues”.<o:p></o:p>“3 that it has
become necessary for me to call the Agbawe secretary and recall PW2 to speak to
those new matters”.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel
for applicant fell on Section 68 (1) of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 to support
his argument. It must be pointed out that, counsel referred to Evidence Act
197`. However, we do not have any Evidence Act 197. It is rather Evidence Act
1975, NRCD 323. Counsel therefore submitted that “it gives the Court absolute
discretion to call any person who can properly be described as a witness only
at the request of a party. It does not even require leave and does not specify
time or stage of proceedings”. <o:p></o:p>In reaction to the
above, counsel for the respondent disagrees and referred the court to the
Evidence Act where it states:&nbsp; “Where
the presentation of the parties leaves doubts or confusion on a matter which
can be clarified by the testimony of a witness known to the court, justice
demands that the witness be heard. The judge is therefore given the power to
call witnesses on his own motion.”<o:p></o:p>He therefore
submitted “They are not callingan expert witness and calling an expert witness
and the witness they wanted to call cannot be considered also as a court
witness since the court is not in doubt or in confusion on any matter which it
will call the secretary of Agbawe Stool to come and clarify”.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel
further submitted “that when the defendants amended their statement of defence to show
how they got their title to the land, the plaintiff did not make any amendment
to its Statement of Claim”.<o:p></o:p>The Court enjoins
every party that appears before it to take absolute advantage of the rules and
procedures of Court. When a party fails to take advantage, and he is caught in
a web, he has himself to blame. That is why we have pleadings to enable every
party to put across his case. Pleadings have been defined by Jowitts Dictionary
of English Law (1959 ed) as “Pleadings in an action has been defined as
written statements delivered alternatively by the parties to one another until
the questions of facts and Law to be decided in the action has been
ascertained”.<o:p></o:p>ED Kom in his book
Civil Procedure in Ghana Third Edition page 52 stated: “Pleadings therefore include
Statement of Claim, Defence, Counterclaim, Defence of Counterclaim, reply,
rejoinder …”<o:p></o:p>Mr. Kom further
indicated at page 71 that “a pleader, however good he may be is not
omniscient, and for that matter, he may either inadvertently omit some facts
which ought to have been pleaded or not foresee all eventuality. He therefore,
ought to amend his pleadings to allege what has been left out ….”<o:p></o:p>In fact, the
defendant filed for amendment. The applicant herein did not file any reply to
it.&nbsp; In Odoi vrs. Hammond
[1971] 1 GLR 375 at P 385 CA Affirmed in [1982-83] GLRD 129 SC<o:p></o:p>“To raise in
answer to the defence any matters which must be pleaded by way of confession
and </main>