Ghana Post Ltd Vrs Sualah [2006] GHACA 17 (23 June 2006)

Ghana Post Ltd Vrs Sualah [2006] GHACA 17 (23 June 2006)

The supplementary affidavit was inadmissible as it contained hearsay, the deponent lacked personal knowledge, and failed to disclose sources of information as required by the rules. The High Court erred in overruling the objection without proper evaluation of the facts and law. The objection should have been sustained and the affidavit expunged.

Citation
[2006] GHACA 17
Parties
Plaintiff/judgment Creditor/appellant: Ghana Post Company Ltd.; Defendant/judgment Debtor: James Sualah Bossman; Claimant/respondent: Ms. Cecilia Foly
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Supplementary Affidavit in Interpleader Claim
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Affidavit Evidence, Hearsay, Interpleader Proceedings, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Affidavit Evidence Hearsay Interpleader Proceedings Admissibility of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ghana Post Company Ltd.

Plaintiff/judgment Creditor/appellant

James Sualah Bossman

Defendant/judgment Debtor

Ms. Cecilia Foly

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Supplementary Affidavit in Interpleader Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supplementary affidavit sworn by a law clerk/interpreter was admissible or constituted inadmissible hearsay under the applicable rules of court and evidence law
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in overruling the objection to the affidavit and failed to properly evaluate the facts and law

Ratio Decidendi

The supplementary affidavit was inadmissible as it contained hearsay, the deponent lacked personal knowledge, and failed to disclose sources of information as required by the rules. The High Court erred in overruling the objection without proper evaluation of the facts and law. The objection should have been sustained and the affidavit expunged.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Objection of the plaintiff sustained
  • Supplementary affidavit expunged from the record