Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta Vi Vrsghana Telecommunication Co. Ltd & Anor [2021] GHASC 163 (31 March 2021)

Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta Vi Vrsghana Telecommunication Co. Ltd & Anor [2021] GHASC 163 (31 March 2021)

The majority held that, since the 1st Respondent had been granted leave to adduce fresh evidence which could potentially overturn the applicant's favourable judgment, fairness and the interest of justice required that the applicant also be allowed to adduce fresh evidence in rebuttal. The applicant satisfied the higher threshold applicable to respondents, as the need for the evidence arose only after the 1st Respondent's application was granted. Denying the application would undermine the applicant's right to a fair hearing.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 163
Parties
Applicant/respondent/respondent/applicant: Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI; 1st Respondent/appellant/appellant/respondent: Ghana Telecommunication Co. Ltd.; 2nd Respondent: Lands Commission
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
31 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion / Application for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Appeal Before the Supreme Court
Outcome
Application granted by majority; dissent by Chief Justice Yeboah.
Legal Topics
Adduction of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Appellate Procedure, Discretion of Appellate Courts, Fair Hearing
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Adduction of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Appellate Procedure Discretion of Appellate Courts Fair Hearing

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI

Applicant/respondent/respondent/applicant

Ghana Telecommunication Co. Ltd.

1st Respondent/appellant/appellant/respondent

Lands Commission

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion / Application for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a respondent to an appeal who was successful in the lower courts may be granted leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal in rebuttal to fresh evidence allowed to the appellant
  2. 2 What criteria apply to an application by a respondent for leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that, since the 1st Respondent had been granted leave to adduce fresh evidence which could potentially overturn the applicant's favourable judgment, fairness and the interest of justice required that the applicant also be allowed to adduce fresh evidence in rebuttal. The applicant satisfied the higher threshold applicable to respondents, as the need for the evidence arose only after the 1st Respondent's application was granted. Denying the application would undermine the applicant's right to a fair hearing.

Court Disposition

Application granted by majority; dissent by Chief Justice Yeboah.

Orders

  • Leave granted to the applicant to adduce fresh evidence in rebuttal of the 1st Respondent's fresh evidence.