ABUBAKARI GARIBA & 2 ORS. vs. KADIRI ISSAKA QUOTA & 11 ORS. [2019]DLHC10178

Date	2019-06-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0048/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10178

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J AIKINS (MRS).

JOHN KLU COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS ABSENT

SAMUEL BOAKYE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS ABSENT

[2019]DLHC10178
																																						<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" >ABUBAKARI
GARIBA &amp; 2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KADIRI
ISSAKA QUOTA &amp; 11 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>JOHN KLU, COUNSEL FOR
THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS ABSENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SAMUEL BOAKYE, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS ABSENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J AIKINS (MRS).<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

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

</div>This
application is essentially a request by the defendants/appellants hereinafter
called the defendants for the Court to grant them leave to adduce additional
evidence on appeal on the ground that the said additional evidence will
properly assist this Court in determining the matter on appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs/respondents have opposed this application, calling it irregular and
thus requesting this Court to dismiss same.<o:p></o:p>The
High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2004, (C.I 47) provides per Order 51
rule 13 as follows <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “It is not open as of right to any party to
an appeal to adduce new evidence in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; support
of the party’s original case; but for the furtherance of justice, the Court &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; may allow or require new evidence to
be adduced; and the evidence shall be either &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; by
oral examination in Court or by affidavit or by deposition taken before an &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; examining Commissioner as the Court may
direct; but the new evidence shall be &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; evidence
which was not within the knowledge of the party or could not have been &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; produced after the exercise of due
diligence by the party at the time when the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; judgment
was given or that order made”. <o:p></o:p>This
Court has carefully adverted its mind to the above-quoted rule and has also
perused the affidavits of both the defendants and the plaintiffs especially the
exhibits attached to the defendant’s application and has also considered the
submissions of Counsel for the defendants. <o:p></o:p>The
Court has also taken into consideration the previous decisions of the Superior
Courts in the following cases; - KARIKARI
v. WIAFE [1982-83] GLR 864, ANNOBIL v. OBOSU AND ANOTHER [1982-83] GLR 585 and FOLI AND OTHERS vs AGYA-ATTA AND OTHERS (CONSOLIDATED) [1976] 1 GLR p 194.<o:p></o:p>After
carefully considering the depositions of the defendants in their affidavit in
support of their application vis a vis the requirements of Order 51 rule 13, this Court is of the opinion that the fresh or
new evidence that the defendants are seeking to adduce on appeal is not
evidence that they could not have put before the trial District Court for its
consideration if they had been diligent enough during the pendency of the
matter before the said trial Court. <o:p></o:p>In
the light of the foregoing, the defendants’ request for an order to adduce
additional evidence on appeal is refused as same is without merit. Cost of GH₵2,000.00
is awarded against the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>The
parties herein are ordered to follow up on the record of appeal at the District
Court so that same would be transmitted to this Court to enable this Court deal
with the substantive appeal.<o:p></o:p>(SGD)<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS
(MRS)<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>