THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT , EX PARTE: JAMES GYAKYE QUAYSON , ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022]DLSC11873

Date	2022-11-30
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/67/2022
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC11873

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

AMEGATCHER JSC

PROF. KOTEY JSC

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

TSATSU TSIKATA ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT WITH JUSTIN PWAVRA TERIWAJAH ESQ.

ALFRED TUAH YEBOAH ESQ. (DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL) FOR THE RESPONDENT/ INTERESTED PARTY WITH RICHARD GYAMBIBY (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) AND DORCAS FELLI (STATE ATTORNEY)

[2022]DLSC11873
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX
PARTE: JAMES GYAKYE QUAYSON<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED
PARTY)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME 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;">

CIVIL MOTION NO.
J5/67/2022&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:
30TH&nbsp;NOVEMBER 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>TSATSU TSIKATA ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT WITH JUSTIN PWAVRA
TERIWAJAH ESQ.<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;">

ALFRED TUAH YEBOAH
ESQ. (DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL) FOR THE RESPONDENT/ INTERESTED PARTY, WITH
RICHARD GYAMBIBY (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) AND DORCAS FELLI (STATE ATTORNEY)<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), AMEGATCHER JSC, PROF. KOTEY JSC, OWUSU
(MS.) JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;OWUSU (MS.) JSC:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
On the 12th of July, 2022, the High Court (Criminal Division)
(3) Accra, in the course of hearing the case in which the applicant is the
accused person on trial, ruled as follows:<o:p></o:p>“As rightly submitted by the prosecution, the said
witness is competent to testify in this matter and his evidence is relevant to
their case and same is admissible. As also rightly submitted by counsel for the
accused person, a witness may not testify to a matter unless sufficient
evidence is introduced to support a finding that the witness has personal
knowledge of the matter. The said witness has made certain positive statements
in his witness statement. Having made such statements which be his evidence in
chief, it is presumed that he has personal knowledge of what he is testifying
to. Whether what he has stated therein are matters he knows can only be
determined under cross examination to rebut that presumption. It is only after
a piece of evidence has been tested under cross examination that the court will
know whether what he says will assist the court to determine a fact in issue.
The objection is therefore overruled. The witness statement of PW1 filed on the
15th of March, 2022 is adopted as his evidence in chief”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The above ruling followed an objection raised by counsel for the
accused, the applicant in the instant application in the course of his trial in
Case No. CR/O264/2022 at the High Court. The prosecution at the High Court had
sought to adopt the witness statement of PW1 Richard Takyi-Mensah, as his
evidence in chief. Counsel for the accused, the applicant in this application
objected and the basis of the objection was that the witness, PW1 who says he
is a teacher resident at Yamoransa does not have personal knowledge of the
matters in paragraph 5 to 14 of his witness statement and certainly cannot
speak from personal knowledge as application for Ghanaian passports are not
made by teachers in Yamoransa among other things. Counsel referred to section
60 (1) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323).<o:p></o:p>The prosecution responded to the objection raised
and submitted that the objection has no basis as section 60 (1) of the Evidence
Act is not couched in mandatory terms. Secondly, per section 60 (2) of the
Evidence Act, the evidence to prove personal knowledge of the matter may but
need not consist of the testimony of the witness himself.&nbsp; The matters raised by the witness in his
witness statement, he has talked about the manner in which the passport of the
accused was obtained. That the prosecution has other witnesses who will come to
court to testify in the matter like the Director of Passport who is going to
tender documents in support of what PW1 is going to tell the court. The trial
Judge ruled on the matter in the Ruling quoted above hence the application
before this Court for an order of Certiorari and Prohibition seeking to quash
the Ruling of the High Court, Accra dated 12th July,2022.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb</main>