NENE KWAKU DARPOH I, 1 OR vs. AGNES NORTEY, 2 ORS. [2014]DLHC12056

Date	2014-03-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E1/4/04
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC12056

HIS LORDSHIP JUTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

CARL ADONGO FOR SORY FOR PLAINTIFF

NYAHE WITH NTOSO FELIX FOR DEFENDANT

[2014]DLHC12056
																																						<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" >NENE KWAKU
DARPOH I, 1 OR.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AGNES NORTEY,
2 ORS.<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: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. E1/4/04&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 5TH&nbsp;MARCH 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>CARL ADONGO FOR SORY FOR PLAINTIFF,<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: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

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

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

</div>&nbsp;<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>On the 25th day of February,
2014, learned counsel for defendants intended to call his witness. When the
witness entered the box, learned counsel for plaintiffs raised an objection.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The objection is that, such
an intended witness should not be allowed to testify because he sat in the
proceedings. This was vehemently denied by counsel for the defence. The
plaintiffs insisted and stood their grounds. I have adjourned to this day to
enable the lawyers to provide me with any authorities for reference. However as
at the time of considering this opinion none has been able.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In my research I have not
been able to get a case that falls on all fours with this case. However I had
the case of Kpekata v COP (1963) 1 GLR 398.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In this case, the appellant
was convicted by the Circuit Court on two (2) counts, one of extortion by a public
officer and one of defrauding by false pretences. In the cause of the trial,
the prosecution asked leave of the Court to recall a witness who had already
given evidence and who had been in Court whilst all the remaining witnesses
were giving evidence. The defendant objected, but the application was granted.
The recalled witness then gave evidence of a confession allegedly made by the
accused. This confession had not previously been deposed to by any of the
witnesses.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Supreme Court said at
page 401 of the report thus:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “In our view it is important that when an
application is made for the recall &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of
a witness the Court should enquire from counsel or the applicant the nature of the evidence the witness was being
recalled to give and if it &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; appears
that the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; evidence intended to be
given is not an explanation of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; something
he had already said, the application should be refused. A &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; witness should only be recalled when
it becomes necessary to explain &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in
very exceptional cases when it &nbsp; would be
in the interest of justice to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; do so
and not otherwise. In our view, the
appellant’s alleged confession &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; should
not have been admitted by the Court at that stage and in the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; circumstances in which it was given in
evidence.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;