Documentary evidence in Ghana case law.

While relevancy is the basis of admissibility (section 51 of The Evidence Act,1975), it is the court which determines what weight to be put on a tendered document when evaluating the evidence.

ADONGO ALOGTE VRS PETER AKOLGO AKUNLIBE & ANO CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/69/2024 [2026] SLR (SC) 20 · Supreme Court · 2026 · LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC

While we appreciate the law, that where evidence is legally inadmissible per se, with or without objection, the same ought to be discarded by the court, the facts here are different since by the provision of the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689), if the matter had been raised the trial court could have ordered the stamp duty to be paid if a reasonable explanation had been offered by the Applicant.

STENA UNICON OFFSHORE GHANA LIMITED RESPONDENT VRS 1. SPRINGFIELD EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/50/2025 [2026] SLR (SC) 10 · Supreme Court · 2026 · GAEWU JSC

It is for the foregoing reasons that we opine, with due deference, that the decisions in the Amonoo vrs. Dee and Mary Tsotsoo Laryea cases, to the extent that this Court sought to lay a general rule on the admissibility of an unstamped document in evidence, was in error. Even though it seems to have been a widespread practice of our trial courts, to admit documents and instruments subject to stamping, such practice, however dated in antiquity or anchored in pragmatism or desirable in outcome cannot be justified where the practice in issue is regulated by an Act of Parliament in clear and unambiguous language.

NII AFLAH VRS BENJAMIN KWAKU BOATENG CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/80/2022 [2023] SLR (SC) 1 · Supreme Court · 2023 · KULENDI JSC

By this formulation in Act 689, both the revenue objective of the Stamp Duty Act and the need to ensure that documents or instruments that may be relevant and credible is not excluded from being received in evidence and considered by a Court, Arbitrator or Referee to aid the ends of justice, are secured. In other words, the provisions of Section 32 of Act 689 are nuanced in order to maximize the primary revenue objectives of the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689) while ensuring that trial processes and ultimately the ends of justice are not unduly disabled from doing substantial justice by the exclusion of relevant documentary evidence that may well enable an effective, fair and just adjudication of disputes.

NII AFLAH VRS BENJAMIN KWAKU BOATENG CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/80/2022 [2023] SLR (SC) 1 · Supreme Court · 2023 · KULENDI JSC

This is because a Court has no discretion to admit in evidence an instrument which has not satisfied any preconditions for admissibility, such as stamping, imposed by the express provisions of an Act of Parliament, such as the terms of section 32 of the Act 689.

NII AFLAH VRS BENJAMIN KWAKU BOATENG CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/80/2022 [2023] SLR (SC) 1 · Supreme Court · 2023 · KULENDI JSC

Where there is a written agreement alongside conflicting oral testimony, the court leans to the documentary evidence, the more so where its authenticity is unchallenged. The reasonable-price provision simply does not arise where the parties have themselves fixed the price.

C. A. LIMITED VRS ANOINTED STAR CONSTRUCTION & 2 ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/03/2022 [2026] SLR (SC) 36 · Supreme Court · 2026 · TANKO AMADU JSC

The import of section 109 supra is that an erroneous ruling by a Court that a document offered in evidence is not subject to stamping at all or if subject to stamping, that sufficient stamp duty has been paid, will not of itself invalidate a decision of the Court. Consequently, a decision which took into account such wrongly adjudged and admitted documents shall not be reversed, set aside or otherwise interfered with, on the sole ground that the document was subject to stamping or that the full stamp duty was not paid, or that the document was not subject to stamping.

NII AFLAH VRS BENJAMIN KWAKU BOATENG CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/80/2022 [2023] SLR (SC) 1 · Supreme Court · 2023 · KULENDI JSC

We are of the considered view that a nuanced distinction must be drawn between two categories of inadmissible evidence. The first encompasses evidence that is inadmissible per se, that is, evidence rendered inherently inadmissible by its very nature or substance, thus precluding its admission under any circumstance. The second category, however, pertains to evidence that is inadmissible not by virtue of any intrinsic inadmissibility, but rather due to technical, procedural, situational, or momentary deficiencies arising from the particular context in which it is initially presented.

GRACE AFRIYIE vs. OSEI KWADWO CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/15/2023 [2025] SLR (SC) 18 · Supreme Court · 2025 · KULENDI JSC

While courts must vigilantly guard against the admission of inherently defective evidence, they must equally ensure that procedural rules serve as facilitators not impediments to the fair and just resolution of disputes. Evidence that is inadmissible solely due to a curable procedural defect should, upon the rectification of such defect, be admitted to aid the court in its ultimate quest for truth and justice.

GRACE AFRIYIE vs. OSEI KWADWO CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/15/2023 [2025] SLR (SC) 18 · Supreme Court · 2025 · KULENDI JSC

The admission of Exhibit C notwithstanding, it is important to note that a trust is a creation of law and cannot be created by virtue of a publication on a website, even if it is suggested that the website belongs to a Government agency or ministry. It is only by recourse to the enabling or governing statute that this Court can determine whether the creation of the Yongwa Forest Reserve, was a compulsory acquisition, a trust, or otherwise.

JOSEPH ANGMORTE AMADE, EBENEZER KOFI TEYE & NARH KWASI VRS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2026] SLR (SC) 3 · Supreme Court · 2026 · AMALEBOBA JSC

It is trite that a statutory declaration is always a self-serving document and so has to be examined and weighed against other relevant evidence to decide what weight to attach to it. The 1st defendant as declarant did NOT even sign this statutory declaration. It was signed by someone he describes in cross examination as his former lawyer.

ADONGO ALOGTE VRS PETER AKOLGO AKUNLIBE & ANO CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/69/2024 [2026] SLR (SC) 20 · Supreme Court · 2026 · LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC