REPUBLIC -VRS STEPHEN KWABENA OPUNI & 2 ORTHERS [2020] GHACA 10 (2 July 2020)

REPUBLIC -VRS STEPHEN KWABENA OPUNI & 2 ORTHERS [2020] GHACA 10 (2 July 2020)

PW2 lacked the requisite personal knowledge and connection to the Investigation Committee report to tender it in evidence. The authors of the report were available and should have been called. The requirements for admissibility under Section 126 of the Evidence Act were not met, and the exclusion of the report did not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Citation
REPUBLIC -VRS STEPHEN KWABENA OPUNI & 2 ORTHERS [2020] GHACA 10 (2 July 2020)
Parties
Respondent: The Republic; 1st Accused Person: Stephen Kwabena Opuni; 2nd Accused Person / Appellant: Seidu Agongo; 3rd Accused Person / Appellant: Agricult Ghana Ltd
Court
ghaca
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
2 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against High Court Ruling
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay Rule, Official Documents, Miscarriage of Justice
Source Language
eng
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Rule Official Documents Miscarriage of Justice

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Respondent

Stephen Kwabena Opuni

1st Accused Person

Seidu Agongo

2nd Accused Person / Appellant

Agricult Ghana Ltd

3rd Accused Person / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against High Court Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit an official report of an Investigation Committee of CRIG through PW2 under the hearsay exceptions in the Evidence Act
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of the report occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

PW2 lacked the requisite personal knowledge and connection to the Investigation Committee report to tender it in evidence. The authors of the report were available and should have been called. The requirements for admissibility under Section 126 of the Evidence Act were not met, and the exclusion of the report did not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Trial Court to continue with the hearing of the case