MOST REVEREND DR. ROBERT ABOAGYE MENSAH, MOST REVEREND DR. JOSEPH OSEI BONSU, RT. REVEREND DANIEL YINKAH-SARFO AND EDWARD OSEI BOAKYE TRUST FUND vs. YAW BOAKYE [2019]DLHC7552

MOST REVEREND DR. ROBERT ABOAGYE MENSAH, MOST REVEREND DR. JOSEPH OSEI BONSU, RT... [2019]DLHC7552

Date	2019-06-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO.AL13/2009
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7552

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

AMINA ALI ISSAKA FOR DANIYAL ABDUL-KARIM FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

YAW OPOKU ADJAYE FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC7552
																																						<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" >MOST REVEREND
DR. ROBERT ABOAGYE MENSAH, MOST REVEREND DR. JOSEPH OSEI BONSU, RT. REVEREND
DANIEL YINKAH-SARFO AND EDWARD OSEI BOAKYE TRUST FUND<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>YAW BOAKYE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERRCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.AL13/2009&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; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 14TH JUNE, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>AMINA
ALI ISSAKA FOR DANIYAL ABDUL-KARIM FOR THE PLAINTIFFS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

YAW
OPOKU ADJAYE FOR THE 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>Preliminary
Objection to Defendants paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of his Further Supplementary
Affidavit [dated15/2/19] in response to Further Supplementary Affidavit in
support filed by the Applicant filed 8/3/19 in Support of Motion for Leave to
go into Execution by Way of Appointment of a Receiver/ Manager Pursuant to
Supreme Court Ruling dated 14th February 2018 <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>On the 28/3/18 the Plaintiff
Applicant filed a motion for leave to go into execution by way of appointment
of a receiver manager. On the 8/3/19 the defendant Respondent herein filed a further
supplementary affidavit in response to a further supplementary affidavit in support
filed by the Applicant [in support of Applicant’s motion of 28/3/18]. Counsel
for the Plaintiff Applicant has raised objection to certain paragraphs therein,
particularly paragraphs 10, 11 and 12. Counsel for the Applicant’s objection
here is that those paragraphs deal with matters that came up in the parties’ attempts
outside court to resolve and to that extent those matters must be kept where
they belong.<o:p></o:p>Disagreeing, counsel for the defendant Respondent
says those paragraphs in issue are in direct response to the Applicants further
supplementary affidavit paragraph 7,8 and 9 where the deponent in those
paragraphs makes reference to attempts by parties to reach an amicable
settlement, counting the number of times the parties met and referring to notices
sent to the Respondent. It is counsel for the Respondents view that Section 105
of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD323 does not apply to the Respondents Reponses
in question.<o:p></o:p>Section 105 reads<o:p></o:p>A
person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person
from disclosing, to the tribunal of fact, information concerning the
furnishing, offering or accepting by that person or the authorized
representatives of that person, of a valuable consideration in compromising
such a claim which was not disputed as to validity or amount and information concerning conduct or statement
made as an part of the compromise negotiations <o:p></o:p>Generally communications between
opposing parties or between their counsel are not privileged. This being the
case and in the absence of any other protection, if one party during a
negotiation made a concession and the negotiation failed, this concession made
could be used as an admission and a very damaging one at that. It is in civil
litigation, to encourage settlement and to avoid such a situation that privilege
attaches to such negotiations towards settlement. This is what is found couched
in section 105 and I hold the view that it applies to the present matter at
hand. These are matters that are generally caught under the ‘without prejudice’
frame.<o:p></o:p>I generally do not from the Respondent’s
counsel’s argument in response to the objection, find him saying that discussions
in their negotiations were made with the intension that they would not be privileged
from disclosure to the court.<o:p></o:p>It is to remove that which has gone on
between the parties and which has the possibility even if remote to effect the
slightest prejudice on the outcome of a case, that this privilege is held dear
and both parties can claim it.<o:p></o:p>The above being my position I will
uphold the objection and strike out not only the defendants paragraphs 10,11
and 12 of his Further Supplementary Affidavit in response to a Further
Supplementary Affidavit in support filed by the Applicant filed 8/3/19 &nbsp;but also &nbsp;paragraphs 7,8 and 9 of the Applicants Further
Supplementary Affidavit in Support filed 22/1/19.<o:p></o:p>

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