REV. ROCHER DE-GRAFT SEFA, ERNEST KWASI NYAME ASIEDU AND SAMUEL GYAMFI. vs. BANK OF GHANA AND ONWARD INVESTMENT [2014]DLSC2931

REV. ROCHER DE-GRAFT SEFA, ERNEST KWASI NYAME ASIEDU AND SAMUEL GYAMFI. vs. BANK... [2014]DLSC2931

Date	2014-07-29
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.J8/75/2014 AND No. J8/76/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2931

BENIN J.S.C.

SAMUEL CODJOE ESQ. WITH HIM THEOPHILUS KPORVIE FOR THE

DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ APPLICANT.

HANSEN K. KODUAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.

[2014]DLSC2931
																																						<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" >REV. ROCHER DE-GRAFT
SEFA, ERNEST KWASI NYAME ASIEDU AND SAMUEL GYAMFI.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BANK OF GHANA AND ONWARD
INVESTMENT<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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.J8/75/2014 AND No.
J8/76/2014&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: 29TH JULY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>SAMUEL CODJOE ESQ. WITH
HIM THEOPHILUS KPORVIE FOR THE DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ 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">

&nbsp;HANSEN K. KODUAH ESQ. FOR
THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.<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">

BENIN
J.S.C. SITTING AS A SINGLE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT&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;&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><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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>BENIN
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>Ordinarily, an application
for leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, as in the instant, should pose no
problem to the court to determine, for the criteria governing it have clearly
been settled in a long line of cases decided at the highest level and by
legislation, namely Supreme Court Rules, C.I.16, rule 76(1)(2). These criteria
are:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
evidence was not available to the applicant at the trial;<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
evidence could not have been obtained by the applicant upon reasonable
diligence for use at the trial;<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Had
the evidence been adduced at the trial it would have had an important influence
on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive;<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Such
as is presumably to be believed, in other words evidence of a sort which is
inherently not improbable.<o:p></o:p>The authors of Halsbury’s
Laws of England, 5th edn.&nbsp;
vol. 12, para. 1676 add a timely reminder that ‘these criteria need to
be applied as guidelines rather than rules and subject to the overriding
objective of dealing with cases justly. In addition the consequences of admitting
the fresh evidence has to be taken into account’. <o:p></o:p>Rule 76(1) and (2) of C.I.
16 provide as follows:<o:p></o:p</main>