MAHOB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED vs. SILVERSTAR AUTO LIMITED AND DAIMLER CHRYSLER AG [2018]DLHC5443

MAHOB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED vs. SILVERSTAR AUTO LIMITED AND DAIMLER CHRYSLER... [2018]DLHC5443

Date	2018-11-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO: BMISC/968/2015
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC5443

KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

SEAN POKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AMA OPOKU AMPONSAH FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

KWESI PAPA OWUSU-ANKOMAH FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC5443
																																						<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" >MAHOB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SILVERSTAR AUTO LIMITED AND DAIMLER CHRYSLER AG <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO: BMISC/968/2015&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;DATE: 29TH NOVEMBER,
2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SEAN POKU FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT <o:p></o:p>AMA OPOKU AMPONSAH FOR THE
1ST DEFENDANT <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">

KWESI
PAPA OWUSU-ANKOMAH FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT<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">

KWEKU
T. ACKAAH-BOAFO 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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Defendant’s Motion to File Supplementary
Witness Statement <o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Applicant’s Case:<o:p></o:p>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This
Court’s ruling of July 9, 2018 is what has undoubtedly triggered the instant
application by the 1st Defendant. This is an application by Counsel for and on
behalf of the 1st Defendant herein praying for leave to file supplementary witness
statement.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
main thrust of the application is that during the cross-examination of the
Plaintiff/Respondent’s witness in May 2018, the Respondent sought leave to file
a Supplementary Witness Statement to introduce documentary evidence related to
the “proof of the alleged purchase of a Hyundai Elantra and documents
purporting to be evidence of vehicle rental”. According to the Applicant herein
though it opposed the application on the grounds that it was seeking to fill in
the gaps in the evidence, the Court granted the application. It is deposed that
“the alleged documents contrary to the Respondent’s assertion was not in
Respondent’s possession the reason for the failure to put them in evidence
earlier”. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It
is deposed that “given the late entry of these documents/evidence, Applicant
could not reasonably bring any documentary evidence to challenge these pieces
of evidence at the time as it was almost at the close of its cross-examination
session”. In the light of that Applicant says it has “since been able to
procure documentary evidence to challenge the documentary evidence introduced
by Respondent”. The Applicant is therefore by this instant application praying
the Court that “in the interest of justice and to assist this Honourable Court
make a determination on the documentary evidence tendered by the Respondent”,
the Applicant should also be permitted to attach certain documents mar</main>