Supreme Court
Action No. 270 of 1981
30th March, 1982
Alcantara, J.

Mr. Said Musa for the Defendant.

Ruling on objection by counsel for Defendant to application by counsel for Plaintiffs to refresh memory of witness from an issue of newspaper - Previous rulings of Court on documentary inadmissibility based on non-disclosure by Defendant in affidavit of documents or non-inclusion of a document sought to aggravate damages of which particulars had been given - Inapplicable in present case - Plaintiff never requested by Defendant to file affidavit of documents - Plaintiff at liberty to produce relevant evidence - Witness allowed to refresh memory from newspaper.

R U L I N G

The witness has denied that Cream Ltd. is the printer of "The Amandala". Counsel for the Plaintiff seeks to introduce an issue of the newspaper to refresh the witness's memory. This is objected to by Counsel for Defence on two grounds:

1. That this particular newspaper was not disclosed by the Plaintiff in their Affidavit of documents, and that it conforms to previous ruling given by me on the admissibility of documentary evidence in the course of these proceedings.

2. That it would be contrary to section 14 of the Newspaper Ordinance.

I shall dispose of the second objection first. There is no certificate pursuant to section in evidence so therefore whatever Mr. Said Musa may have said can be contradicted by other admissible evidence.

As regards the first objection I am conscious that the Defence in their pleading have not denied that the second Defendant is the printer of the newspaper. They have merely not admitted it, thus putting the Plaintiff to the proof.

This they are now seeking to do.

My previous rulings on documentary admissibility have been based first on non-disclosure by the Defendant in his Affidavit of documents, and secondly on non-inclusion of a document sought to aggravate damages of which particulars had been given.

This is different; the Defendant never requested the Plaintiff to file Affidavit of documents and therefore the Plaintiffs are at liberty to produce relevant evidence.

This evidence is not only relevant to refresh the witness's memory, but also as to the fact of whom the printer might be, regardless of any other oral evidence.

----------OO----------