LESLIE BRUCE vs. THE JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2019]DLHC10296

Date	2019-03-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/1650/17
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10296

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

[2019]DLHC10296
																																						<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" >LESLIE
BRUCE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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">SUIT NO. GJ/1650/17&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: 5TH
MARCH, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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;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">HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS
(MRS).<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;OBJECTIONS BY
PLAINTIFF COUNSEL TO EXHIBITS 6 AND 5 ATTACHED TO THE DEFENDANT’S WITNESS
STATEMENT FILED ON 6TH DECEMBER, 2015.<o:p></o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>The counsel for the Plaintiff has
objected to some exhibits, precisely 6 and 5, which are attached to the
defendant’s Witness Statement. The ground for counsel’s objection to Exhibit
‘6’ is that the said exhibit, which is a memorandum addressed to the Judicial
Secretary with an attached report of the Disciplinary Committee that
investigated allegations of bribery against the Plaintiff herein and other
staff members of the 1st Defendant, is unsigned by one member of the
committee that conducted the investigations. Counsel says the lack of the
signature of one member makes the document incomplete and so the document is
incompetent for admission in Court. <o:p></o:p>With regard to Exhibit ‘5’ which is a
copy of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee, counsel for the
Plaintiff objects to same on the ground that it bears no signature of the
author of the said document and so it must not be admitted by the Court. <o:p></o:p>In responding to the objection the
counsel for the Defendants asked the Court to overrule the objection and to
admit the two exhibits on the basis of relevance. Counsel referred the Court to
some sections of the Evidence Act of
1975, Act 323 precisely sub section 51, 52, 148 and 136 and stated that once the said documents have been duly
certified by the Judicial Secretary, they must be admitted by the Court because
they form the basis of the case for the Defendants. <o:p></o:p>The Court has carefully considered both
Exhibits ‘6’ and ‘5’ and notes that both are of relevance to the substantive
suit and will therefore admit both exhibits on the basis of relevance and for
what they are worth. The objections of learned counsel for the Plaintiff are
thus overruled.&nbsp; <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>

&nbsp;</main>