Dzotepe Vrs. Agbeko (E7/01/2022) [2024] GHAHC 306 (3 July 2024)

INTHESUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE INTHEHIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HO–VOLTAREGION A. D.2024 CORAM: H/LJUSTICEYAW OWOAHENE-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’s2ndwitness (Pw2) in giving evidence in supportofthe Plaintiff’scase, soughtto tenderadocument inevidence as exhibit ‘U’ Counselforthe defendant raised anobjectiontothe tendering oftheintended document tobe tenderedin evidence as exhibit U. Counselforthe defendant wasthat thedocument seeking tobe tenderedis unsigned and also unauthenticated. Counselforthe defendant premised hisaugment further thattherewas nothing toshowthat thedocument was coming frompropercustodybecause, according tocounsel for the defendant, Pw2, is not amember ofstanding committee. 2 Fromallthe above, counsel fordefendant praysthe intended document seeking tobe tenderedmust be rejected. Inaswift rebuttalofthe foregoing submissionsby counsel for thedefendant, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that,they have laid afoundation oftheintended document totenderedin their paragraph‘C’ oftheir witness statementthat theintended document afore-referred was partofseries ofdocuments theywould rely uponatthe trial. Counselforthe plaintiff arguesfurtherthat eventhoughtheyintended document was unsigned, they have managedto procurethe same since according tocounsel for theplaintiff thatdocument is relevant in the instant case. Counselforthe plaintiff referred the courttothe case ofNANA ADDO DANQUAH& ORSV JOHND. MAHAMA case, thatif theevidence seeking tobe tendered wasrelevant it doesnot matterhowthesame was procured. The document seeking tobe tendered isentitled “briefing onRev. Dr. Lt.ColB. D. K.Agbeko by the standing committee”. Acritical perusalofthe said document willshow thatthe authorofthe document was not named and thedocument is trulyunsigned. Again, apart from the document referring to series of dates, the document itself remains undated. Ithink that in generaltermsit is quite dangerousfor one tosignablank cheque. 3 Intheinstant matter Ithink thatis would also be dangeroustoadmit in evidence a document towhichits authoris unknown. Ithink that, in the instant matterthe rulesofevidence onrelevancy is ratherinapplicable. Because thepersonwho signed thedocument must be aknownindividual, who so that he may be called upon tobe cross-examined onhis owndeed. Fromthe above, I agreeperfectly withcounsel forthe 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