Article 88: Filing the list of witnesses

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4052/2567 (2024)

   Even where a party failed to list documents in its list of witnesses and to serve copies at least seven days before the hearing under Section 88 paragraph one and Section 90, the court may still admit them under Section 87(2) where they are important evidence on a key issue and justice so requires.

   The Supreme Court held that documents attached to the appeal and petition, although not listed or exchanged as Section 88 and Section 90 require, could be admitted because Section 87(2) allows the court to receive important evidence on a key issue in the interest of justice.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1267/2565 (2022)

   Facts admitted by the parties at the settlement-of-issues hearing and documents they have already filed with the court may be used to decide the case without being separately entered in a list of witnesses under Section 88.

   The court held that the appellate court properly relied on the record of proceedings and on documents the parties had filed, without requiring those matters to be entered in a Section 88 list of witnesses.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4138/2564 (2021)

   Where the Supreme Court must in any event rule on a party's request to file an additional list of witnesses at the Dika stage, there is no purpose in deciding whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse additional evidence under section 88 paragraph three, because it would not change the result.

   The defendant's defence asserted at the outset that he had a better possessory right than the plaintiff, and then went on to admit the plaintiff's right by pleading that the plaintiff knew he had stopped paying rent from B.E. 2553, so the defence contradicted itself and was improper under section 177 paragraph two. On the substance, the defendant had rented the disputed land from the plaintiff, and although it lay within a national forest reserve, that only prevented the plaintiff from asserting rights against the State: as between the two of them, by paying rent the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's better right and possessed on the plaintiff's behalf, so the plaintiff could evict him. On the evidence point, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether the Court of Appeal had rightly refused additional evidence under section 88 paragraph three, as it had in any event to rule on the fresh list of witnesses offered at the Dika stage and the answer would not change the result.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.