SYNDICATED CAPITAL LIMITED ACCRA NORTH vs. UNITY RURAL BANK LIMITED AND SERAPHEM SENYO HINIDZAH [2018]DLHC4076

SYNDICATED CAPITAL LIMITED ACCRA NORTH vs. UNITY RURAL BANK LIMITED AND SERAPHEM... [2018]DLHC4076

Date	2018-05-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E2/74/2015
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC4076

ERIC BAAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC4076
																																						<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" >SYNDICATED CAPITAL
LIMITED ACCRA NORTH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>UNITY RURAL BANK LIMITED
AND SERAPHEM SENYO HINIDZAH<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>SUIT
NO. E2/74/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;3RD MAY,
2018 <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC
BAAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>BY
COURT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>The
new lawyers for the 2nd defendant absent without excuse or justification. The
plaintiff has closed its case. The plaintiff was allowed to testify when the
defendants and their counsel failed to appear and there was no excuse or
justification. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By
Gblorkpor for the 1st defendant - The witness statement of
the plaintiff's witness was not verified. It
is essential that the witness statement was verified. So the plaintiff was not
properly before the court. I rely on the 1995 edition of the White Book, pages
640-650. The court should not have admitted a defective witness statement. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By
plaintiff's counsel - We
concede that the witness statement of the plaintiff was not verified. It does
not have a statement of truth attached. We however rely on Order 81 and the
decision in Ex parte Allgate, and submit that the non compliance is curable by
order 81 as it does not go to jurisdiction or the rules of natural justice. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
was a case management conference where the 1st defendant's counsel should have
raised the matter. He did not raise it and for over a year, he has been
partaking in proceedings in this court. We pray that the irregularity should
not be one that should affect the proceedings. We
submit accordingly. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>RULING <o:p></o:p>The
1st defendant's counsel alleges that the witness statement of the plaintiff's
witness which he relied on as his evidence - in –
chief on 20/2/18 was not verified. He
contends that the said defect rendered the witness statement unusuable. He
relied on the 1995 edition of the White Book, pages 640 - 650. <o:p></o:p>