Cubagee Vrs Asare and Others [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)

Cubagee Vrs Asare and Others [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)

Secret recording of a telephone conversation by a party to the conversation without the other party's consent is a violation of the right to privacy under Article 18(2) of the Constitution. Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights is not automatically excluded; the court must exercise discretion, considering all circumstances, including the nature and manner of the violation and the impact on the fairness and integrity of proceedings. In this case, the deliberate violation of privacy for litigation purposes warrants exclusion of the evidence to protect the administration of justice.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 14
Parties
Plaintiff: Raphael Cubagee; Defendant: Michael Yeboah Asare; Defendant: K. Gyasi Company Limited; Defendant: Assembly of God Church
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Reference (interpretation and Enforcement) / Supreme Court Determination on Reference From Magistrate
Outcome
Secret recording excluded from evidence; case to be transferred to another District Court.
Legal Topics
Right to Privacy, Admissibility of Evidence, Exclusionary Rule, Interpretation of Constitutional Rights
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Evidence Law Human Rights Right to Privacy Admissibility of Evidence Exclusionary Rule Interpretation of Constitutional Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raphael Cubagee

Plaintiff

Michael Yeboah Asare

Defendant

K. Gyasi Company Limited

Defendant

Assembly of God Church

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Reference (interpretation and Enforcement) / Supreme Court Determination on Reference From Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether secret recording of a telephone conversation by a party to the conversation violates Article 18(2) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Secret recording of a telephone conversation by a party to the conversation without the other party's consent is a violation of the right to privacy under Article 18(2) of the Constitution. Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights is not automatically excluded; the court must exercise discretion, considering all circumstances, including the nature and manner of the violation and the impact on the fairness and integrity of proceedings. In this case, the deliberate violation of privacy for litigation purposes warrants exclusion of the evidence to protect the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Secret recording excluded from evidence; case to be transferred to another District Court.

Orders

  • The secret recording is excluded from evidence.
  • The case is to be transferred to the nearest District Court for determination.