Hearing commenced at 10:00 am. After the announcement of parties and their Counsel, Counsel for the Petitioner informed the court that their witness, ROJO METTLE NUNOO was ready to testify via video link.
Counsel for 2nd Respondent however informed the Court that he had some preliminary matters to raise. He submitted to the Court that it was absolutely necessary that a judicial officer is present on the premises where the witness is testifying from to ensure the sanctity of cross-examination and avoid the witness being in Communication with any other party during the testimony.
Counsel further submitted that a look at the concluding statement of truth in the written testimony of the Respondent showed that he states that he only believes in the truth of paragraphs 1-16 even though there are 32 paragraphs. The Court however asked Counsel to reserve that till the testimony is presented to be admitted by the witness.
Counsel for Petitioner informed the Court that he was in absolute agreement with the fact that there must be a judicial officer present on the premises where the witness is testifying from. Consequently if the court could give 30minutes, the designated officer could be taken to the venue.
The court therefore recessed for a judicial officer to be sent to the location of the witness.
OBJECTION BY COUNSEL FOR 2ND RESPONDENT
When the Court returned, Counsel raised again the issue that a look at the concluding statement of truth in the written testimony of the Respondent showed that he states that he only believes in the truth of paragraphs 1-16 even though there are 32 paragraphs hence paragraphs 17 to 32 should be struck out.
Counsel for Petitioner sought to suggest there was no basis for the objection but Torkonoo JSC halted him stating that on the face of the document, there was basis. The court however granted leave for the 16 to be changed to 32 instead of striking out as prayed.
Out of the 32 paragraphs in the witness statement, Counsel for 2nd Respondent objected to 24 paragraphs and prayed the Court to strike them out. The grounds of the objection bordered on the said paragraphs not being borne out of the pleadings in the matter while some were irrelevant. Others were also said to be a needless cumulative evidence and an attempt to ridicule the ruling of the court on inspection of documents in order to reintroduce through the back door, the question of authenticity which had been determined by the court.
Counsel for the Petitioner in a long drawn submission answering the objection , sought to link the various paragraphs to the pleadings of the Petitioner. He also made references to some portions of the answers of the Respondents and the testimony of the witnesses so far under cross-examination which necessitated those paragraphs.Counsel further submitted on transparency and why it had informed some of the paragraphs of the witness also that by the procedure of petitions, they couldn’t have responded to the answers of the Respondents hence the need to do so in their witness statements .
Counsel for 1st Respondent when called for a reply informed the court that he believes all this was happening because the court gave permission for Petitioner to file a belated witness statement.
In replying, Counsel for 2nd Respondent also noted that, it is the absence of a reply that should have informed the Petitioner to include in his petition, all important facts he wanted to rely. Having failed to do that, he cannot lead evidence matters not included in his petition no matter how important he finds those matters.
The court recessed to rule on the matter.
RULING
The Court ruled that paragraphs 4,5,6,7 and 18 be struck out and the rest maintained.
Case was adjourned to Monday, 8th February 2021.
0 Comments