ELIZABETH ABOAGYE AND CYNTHIA ABOAGYE vs. EMMANUEL ABOAGYE AND ALEX AKYEM OF AYANFRE-DUNKWA [2016]DLHC4212

ELIZABETH ABOAGYE AND CYNTHIA ABOAGYE vs. EMMANUEL ABOAGYE AND ALEX AKYEM OF AYA... [2016]DLHC4212

Date	2016-11-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FAL 43/2014
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC4212

FRANCIS OBIRI

REV. GABORA FOR DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC4212
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">ELIZABETH ABOAGYE AND CYNTHIA ABOAGYE<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL ABOAGYE AND ALEX AKYEM OF AYANFRE-DUNKWA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<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">

SUIT
NO.
FAL 43/2014&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
17TH NOVEMBER, 2016 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <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><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

FRANCIS OBIRI, JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">This ruling is in respect of an objection raised by Counsel
for the Plaintiff against an order this Court made on&nbsp;&nbsp; 27-10-16.&nbsp;
The Court on the said date ordered both parties in the case to file
their witness statements as well as all the exhibits they intend to tender in
the case on or before 11-11-16.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On the said
date, Counsel for plaintiff was not in Court when the order was made.&nbsp; However, Counsel for defendant was in
Court.&nbsp; The plaintiffs were also in
Court.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Counsel for
plaintiff contended in his submission before the Court on 16-11-16 as follows:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the Court erred when she made the
said order for witness statements to be &nbsp; filed
since directions had already been taken in the case.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">(b) That, application for directions was taken on 26-11-2014
by which time C.I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
87 (High Court) (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rule 2014, had not come
into force.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;In the view of Counsel, the order for filing
of witness statements can only be made at the application for directions
stage.&nbsp; To that effect; once direction
was taken before C.I 87 came into force, the Court erred in making the said
order Counsel therefore prayed that same should be vacated. Counsel referred
the Court to Order 32 rule 7A sub rule 4(2) of C.I 87.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In
response, Counsel for defendant submitted that, the Court should always aim at
expeditious trial.&nbsp; Therefore the Court
was not wrong when the order was made.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I wish to
say that the Court is empowered under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act
323) to control mode and order of interrogation.<o:p></o:p>