ANCHOR INT. INDUSTRIAL LTD (PLAINTIFF) vs. SAMUEL GYIMAH (DEFENDANT) [2018]DLHC7188

Date	2018-07-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/0233/16
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7188

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

THEOPHILUS KPOBI FOR DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC7188
																																						<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" >ANCHOR INT.
INDUSTRIAL LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL
GYIMAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
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. CM/0233/16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 10TH JULY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

THEOPHILUS KPOBI FOR
DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).<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;line-height:115%;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>On the 9th July 2018 the
Defendant’s Counsel raised an objection at case management regarding an audio
recording which the Plaintiff sought to rely on. Both lawyers relied on the
case of Raphael Cabagee vs. Michael Yeboah Asare &amp; 2 ors., Suit No.
J6/04/2017 (unreported).<o:p></o:p>I have had occasion of reading the said
decision of the Supreme Court. I overruled the objection of Defence Counsel and
reserved my reason to today so as to afford myself the opportunity to read the
decision of the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>In my view the recording which the
Plaintiff is seeking to rely on was not made with a view to prosecute the case
before me. If that were so the Plaintiff would have pleaded it in the statement
of claim.<o:p></o:p>The said recording was mentioned when
the Defendant denied all the averments of the Plaintiff relating to the
transaction. It was at this point that the Plaintiff introduced the recording
in its reply as a means to expose the Defendant’s denial of the averments
contained in the pleadings.<o:p></o:p>In such circumstance as the Supreme
Court decided that it is a matter of discretion for the court to either admit
or reject the evidence. Looking at the circumstances of the case, the injustice
which would be occasioned by the rejection of the evidence outweighs any breach
of the human rights of the Defendant by the said recording. <o:p></o:p>The dictates of justice therefore
requires that the said evidence be admitted. It was for this reason that I overruled
the objection raised by Defence Counsel.<o:p></o:p>

Case is adjourned to 25th
July 2018 at 9:30 a.m. for continuation of case management. <o:p></o:p></main>