GOKALS LABOREX vs. LUFTHANSA CARGO AG & 2 OTHERS [2019]DLHC9032

Date	2019-07-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/0164/2016
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC9032

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

ALEX OSEI-OWUSU ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

JOSEPH BERNARD ASHALLEY ESQ. FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

YASMIN BAABA ESQ. (HOLDING BRIEF FOR ESINE OKUDZETO ESQ.) FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

DAAD AKWASI ESQ. FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC9032
																																						<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" >GOKALS LABOREX<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LUFTHANSA CARGO AG &amp; 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><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>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ALEX OSEI-OWUSU, ESQ., FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>JOSEPH BERNARD ASHALLEY, ESQ., FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>YASMIN BAABA, ESQ., (HOLDING BRIEF FOR ESINE OKUDZETO,
ESQ.) FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<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;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:4.75pt">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;tab-stops:61.2pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">DAAD AKWASI, ESQ., FOR THE 3RD
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is an application by the Plaintiff praying for
leave of the court to subpoena two (2) witnesses to produce documents and also
to testify to same.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first subpoena is directed at the
officer-in-charge, Food and Drugs Authority, Kotoka International Airport to
produce certain documents which are listed in the supplementary affidavit filed
in support of the Plaintiff’s application on 5th July, 2019.&nbsp; The second subpoena is aimed at Grass Savoye,
requesting that they provide to the court the insurance policy covering the
importation of a certain named drug.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have considered the affidavits in support of and in
opposition to this application as well as the written submissions of Counsel
for all the parties putting forward the various positions and contentions of
all their clients.&nbsp; I have also given my
thoughtful consideration to the law and the authorities on this subject.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I would note, on the onset, that it is true that the
whole idea for the introduction of&nbsp; Case
Management in the trial proceedings under the directives of the C.I 87 as it
amended the C.I 47 is to assist the court dispose of cases speedily for
effective justice through effective Case Management.&nbsp; After all, it is well known that justice
delayed is justice denied.&nbsp; However, in
my candid opinion, the C.I 87 has not whittled away the import of the other
principles such as the principle on which a court may recall a witness or even
subpoena a witness during trial proceedings in a situation where that party did
not disclose his intention to subpoena anybody on the pre-trial check list.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Once judgment has not been pronounced, a party has a
right to call any additional witness, with justifiable reasons, of course and
this would accord with the principl</main>