JANET AFUA ASANTEWAA SIAW & 5 ORS VRS JOSEPH APEADU SIAW & 13 ORS. (ld/0406/2020) [2024] GHAHC 136 (25 March 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GHANA (LAND COURT 7) HELD IN ACCRA ON THE MONDAY THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.) SUIT NO. LD/0406/2020 JANET AFUA ASANTEWAA SIAW :: 1ST PLAINTIFF KWAME AGYEKUM SIAW :: 2ND PLAINTIFF JANET ABENA SERWAA SIAW MARY AFUA SERWAA SIAW JENNIFER YAA ADJOBI JOYCE TATA SIAW ALL OF ACCRA :: :: :: 3RD PLAINTIFF 4TH PLAINTIFF 5TH PLAINTIFF :: 6TH PLAINTIFF VRS JOSEPH APEADU SIAW H/NO. 39, AVIATION ROAD, ACCRA :: 1ST DEFENDANT JONATHAN ODARTEY BAIDOO OKAISHIE – ACCRA :: 2ND DEFENDANT MICHAEL KWAME SIAW :: 3RD DEFENDANT KWASI SIAW :: 4TH DEFENDANT RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU AT LAND COURT ‘7’ IN SUIT NO. LD/0406/2020 ON 25 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 “r.a.a” DORIS SIAW ALFRED SIAW DENIS SIAW PATIENCE NANA AMA SIAW CHRISTIANA SIAW RICHARD SIAW GIFTY SIAW GLORIA SIAW KOFI ACHEAMPONG SIAW YAW MARFO SIAW ALL OF ACCRA :: 5TH DEFENDANT :: 6TH DEFENDANT :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: 7TH DEFENDANT 8TH DEFENDANT 9TH DEFENDANT 10TH DEFENDANT 11TH DEFENDANT 12TH DEFENDANT 13TH DEFENDANT 14TH DEFENDANT =================================================== PARTIES: 1ST PLAINTIFFF PRESENT 2ND TO 6TH PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED BY DORA SERWA SIAW 1ST DEFENDANT PRESENT 2ND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MOHAMMED JIMA 4TH DEFENDANT PRESENT AND REPRESENTS THE 3RD DEFENDANT REST OF THE DEFENDANTS ARE ABSENT COUNSEL: ABDUL AZIZ GOMDA ESQ., H/B FOR HOWARD ALBERT QUAYE FOR PLAINTIFFS PRESENT AURELIUS AWUKU ESQ., FOR 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS PRESENT =================================================== RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU AT LAND COURT ‘7’ IN SUIT NO. LD/0406/2020 ON 25 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 “r.a.a” R U L I N G The Plaintiffs’ Counsel has objected to the decision of the 2nd to the 4th Defendants to subpoena the Executive Secretary of the National Identification Authority. His main reason is that the subpoena would delay the trial as his appearance will not help in resolving the issues before the Court. According to learned Counsel, the Defendants in issue had earlier served a Notice to Admit on them which they did not answer and by the Rules of Court, the questions posed to them should be deemed to have admitted the facts therein contained. The Counsel for the 2nd to the 4th Defendants opposed to the Application. The Court finds the basis of the objection untenable. After the Plaintiffs had failed or refused to admit or deny the facts posed to them, it is strange that they could turn around to talk about delay when their answer could equally have saved the Court’s time if they are minded to have an expeditious trial. Further, it does not appear to me that the inference that could be drawn from the Rules for failure to admit or deny facts is by itself a fetter to the right of a party to call a witness to put his case across in a more clearer way of his choice. I know of no rule that empowers the Courts to vet the witnesses a party seeks to call once the person being called is fit and capable of testifying. See NANA AMUA GYEBU XV VRS MONDIAL VENEER GHANA LIMITED [2011] 35 GMJ 164 at page 169 and A. G. AND 10 ORS VRS ANTHONY AND 2 ORS [2015] 86 G. M. J 192 at page 217. There was also an objection to an extract of proceedings in a different suit being sought to be tendered by the Defendants. I believe the authority of ADWUBENG DOMFEH [1996–97] SC GLR 660, [1997– 98] 1 GLR 282 cited by Counsel for the Defendant settles the issue. To the extent RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU AT LAND COURT ‘7’ IN SUIT NO. LD/0406/2020 ON 25 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 “r.a.a” that the statement in the previous suit is being sought to discredit the evidence of a person in this Court, the prior statement is admissible. Pwamang JSC in MRS. VIVIAN AKU BROWN DANQUAH VRS SAMUEL LANQUAYE ODARTEY, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/4/2026 DATED 29TH JUNE, 2016, SC (UNREPORTED) held thus “earlier inconsistent statement is not by itself evidence of the truth of its contents but may only be used to confront the witness and attach his credibility as to the veracity of his testimony”. In the light of the above, I find both objections unmeritorious and I overrule them. (SGD.) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU AT LAND COURT ‘7’ IN SUIT NO. LD/0406/2020 ON 25 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 “r.a.a” REFERENCE: CASES CITED: 1. NANA AMUA GYEBU XV VRS MONDIAL VENEER GHANA LIMITED [2011] 35 GMJ 164 2. AND A. G. AND 10 ORS VRS ANTHONY AND 2 ORS [2015] 86 G. M. J 192 3. ADWUBENG DOMFEH [1996–97] SC GLR 660, [1997–98] 1 GLR 282 4. MRS. VIVIAN AKU BROWN DANQUAH VRS SAMUEL LANQUAYE ODARTEY, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/4/2026 DATED 29TH JUNE, 2016, SC (UNREPORTED) RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU AT LAND COURT ‘7’ IN SUIT NO. LD/0406/2020 ON 25 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 “r.a.a” 5