REV. ROCHER DE-GRAFT SEFA AND ERNEST KWASI NYAME ASIEDU vs. BANK OF GHANA AND ONWARD INVESTMENT CIVIL MOTION No. J8/75/2014 29TH JULY 2014 AND SAMUEL GYAMFI. vs. BANK OF GHANA AND ONWARD INVESTMENT [2014]DLSC5087

REV. ROCHER DE-GRAFT SEFA AND ERNEST KWASI NYAME ASIEDU vs. BANK OF GHANA AND O... [2014]DLSC5087

Date	2014-07-29
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION No. J8/76/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC5087

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]DLSC5087
																																						<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 AND ERNEST KWASI NYAME ASIEDU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BANK OF GHANA AND ONWARD INVESTMENT<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>CIVIL MOTION No. J8/75/2014 29TH JULY 2014<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL GYAMFI.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BANK OF GHANA AND ONWARD INVESTMENT<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[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 MOTION 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;29TH
JULY 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>BENIN J.S.C. SITTING AS A SINGLE JUSTICE OF
THE SUPREME COURT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>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;
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;
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;
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. vol. 12, para. 1676 add a timely reminder
that ‘these criteria need to be applied as guidel</main>