When a name or concept is ‘corrupted’ over time due to misspelling or mispronunciation, it becomes very difficult to revert to the original name or concept. It’s surprising to see how names have changed over time, such as Kofi Ofori Dua becoming Koforidua, Nungua being anglicized as Ningo-wa, and Techiman for Takyi Oman. For human names, we see names like Umar being changed to Moro, Abu to Bukari, and Hussein to Fuseini. Even Ghanaian football legend Abedi Pele was originally named Abedi Ayew but was later corrupted over time. The trouble in restoring a corrupted name or concept over a period of time is similar to the evidential principle of relying on pleadings and judgment as proof.
The evidential rule traditionally demanded the production of the judgment and the record, but it was not clear if they had to be tendered in evidence before they could be considered. However, the Supreme Court attempted to clarify the rule in the case of Otu X and Others v. Owuodzi and Others. They claimed that the rule was not inflexible and that the production of the judgment was not a sine qua non in establishing the defence of estoppel per rem judicatam. This shows that the rule had been attenuated and ‘corrupted’ in the course of its development.
Realizing that the rule was losing its conservativeness, the Supreme Court, in 2018, adopted a hard-nosed position in the matter of Bimbilla Na, Salifu Dawuni (substituted by Sagnarigu Lana Shani Azumah), Juo Regent, Osman Mahama v. Andani Dasana (substituted by Nyelinborgu Naa Yakubu Andani Dasana), Azumah Natogma.