FRANK REUBEN WOOD vs. CYNTHIA WOOD [2014]DLCA3601

Date	2014-05-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.H1/6/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA3601

ACQUAYE J.A (PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA J.A

SOWAH J.A

MR. SAM WOOD FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANT

DAFEAMEKPOR FOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2014]DLCA3601
																																						<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" >FRANK REUBEN WOOD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CYNTHIA WOOD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.H1/6/2013&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; &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: 22ND MAY,
2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. SAM WOOD FOR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT<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">

DAFEAMEKPOR
FOR RESPONDENT/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">

ACQUAYE J.A (PRESIDING)
HONYENUGA, J.A SOWAH, J.A<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>SOWAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>It is provided by Section 68 of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD
323 as follows:<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp; The Court may, on its own motion or at the
request of a party, call or recall a witness.<o:p></o:p>In this
interlocutory appeal, the appellant is appealing the Ruling of the trial court dated
30th May 2011 which refused his application brought after he had
closed his case, to call a witness to rebut evidence of the respondent relating
to property at Kwabenya whose ownership is in dispute. <o:p></o:p>The appellant is
seeking that the whole Ruling be set aside and leave granted to call Leticia
Ama Adobea, the proposed witness to testify in respect of the property in issue. <o:p></o:p>Five grounds of
appeal were filed, but the appellant only argued the first 4 grounds, namely:<o:p></o:p>1.
The ruling is against the weight of evidence on record.<o:p></o:p>2.
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that “the evidence that the
applicant seeks to introduce by wanting leave to call a witness to do so was
both available and foreseeable (sic) necessary before the applicants case was
closed and should have been adduced as a proper and necessary part of the
applicants case” without giving reasons to support the said holding and in the
process occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial judge erred in law when he
held that “the applicants assertion that during the period that he opened his
case he could not locate the witness after diligent search to testify in court
till he closed his case could not be a legitimate ground upon which this court
would permit him long after he has closed his case to lead fresh evidence and
thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial judge erred in law when he
held that to allow the petitioner’s application was to aid the applicant to
fill gaps that he had left and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 7.65pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">It is no surprise that after reading his
convoluted 5th ground, the appellant’s counsel chose to remain
silent about this ground of appeal. That ground of appeal, and to a lesser
extent even the 2nd and 3rd&nbsp; grounds sin against Rule 8(5) of the Court of
Appeal Rules, 1997 C.I. 19 which provides that the
grounds of appeal should be set out concisely and under distinct heads without
any argument or narrative. I accordingly strike out
the 5th ground of appeal.<o:p></o:p>In respect of the 2nd,
3rd and 4th grounds, I agree with the submission of
appellants' counsel that those grounds of appeal can be subsumed under his
arguments in ground 1 of the appeal which attacks the Ruling as not supported
by the totality of the evidence. I therefore propose to address all the grounds
of appeal under the omnibus ground of appeal.<o:p></o:p>At this stage, I
must also put on record that in spite of several adjournments, the respondent
has failed to file her submissions in response to the submissions of the
appellant.<o:p></o:p>Now, to the merits
of the appeal on the ground that the Ruling is against the weight of evidence
on record.<o:p></o:p>It is trite that </main>