Dzotefe Vrs. Agbeko (E7/01/2022) [2024] GHAHC 318 (3 July 2024)

INTHESUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE INTHEHIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HO–VOLTAREGION A. D.2024 CORAM: H/LJUSTICE YAWOWOAHENE-ACHEAMPONG J. SUITNO. E7/01/2022 3RDJULY, 2024 REVERENDKENYAODZOTEPE - PLAINTIFF FlatNo. 5VoltaBlock SSNITFlat,Ho VERSUS:- RT REVERENDDR. LTCOL. B.D. K AGBEKO(RTD)- DEFENDANT Evangelical PresbyterianChurch Headquarters,Ho RULING On26/03/2024 Plaintiff’s 2nd witness (Pw2) in giving evidence in support ofthe Plaintiff’scase, soughtto tenderadocument inevidence as exhibit ‘U’ Counsel for the defendant raised an objection to the tendering of the intended document to be tenderedin evidence as exhibit U. Counsel for the defendant was that the document seeking to be tendered is unsigned and also unauthenticated. 2 Counsel for the defendant premised his augment further that there was nothing to show that the document was coming from proper custody because, according to counsel for the defendant, Pw2, is not amember ofstanding committee. From all the above, counsel for defendant prays the intended document seeking to be tenderedmust be rejected. In a swift rebuttal of the foregoing submissions by counsel for the defendant, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, they have laid a foundation of the intended document to tendered in their paragraph ‘C’ of their witness statement that the intended document afore-referred was partofseries ofdocuments theywould rely uponatthe trial. Counsel for the plaintiff argues further that even though they intended document was unsigned, they have managed to procure the same since according to counsel for the plaintiff thatdocument is relevant in the instant case. Counsel for the plaintiff referred the court to the case ofNANA ADDO DANQUAH & ORS V JOHN D. MAHAMA case, that if the evidence seeking to be tendered was relevant it does not matterhowthesame was procured. The document seeking tobe tendered is entitled “briefing on Rev. Dr. Lt. Col B. D. K. Agbeko by the standing committee”. A critical perusal of the said document will show that the author of the document was not named and thedocument is trulyunsigned. Again, apart from the document referring to series of dates, the document itself remains undated. 3 Ithink that in generaltermsit is quite dangerousfor one tosignablank cheque. In the instant matter I think that is would also be dangerous to admit in evidence a document towhichits authoris unknown. Ithink that, in the instant matterthe rulesofevidence onrelevancy is ratherinapplicable. Because the person who signed the document must be a known individual, who so that he may be called upon tobe cross-examined onhis owndeed. From the above, I agree perfectly with counsel for the defendant that the document seeking to be tendered,as exhibit ‘U’ is hereby marked as exhibit ‘R’. The objectionis thereforeupheld. H/LJUSTICE YAWOWOAHENE-ACHEAMPONG JUSTICEOF THE HIGH COURT COUNSEL R. KUDJOFOR Q. H.QUIST FOR PLAINTIFF DICK ANYADI WITHALBERTDUOSE FORDEFENDANT 4 eve