[1977]DLCA1442December 7, 1977Court of Appeal

ZOGLI AND ANOTHER vs. GANYO

The respondent sued after defamatory statements were made by the second appellant, a schoolboy, alleging that the respondent’s daughter was not his biological child and that the respondent gave his wives to other men to bear children. The first appellant later admitted that he had told his son the matters repeated by the son. Following the incident, the parties met before a third party to resolve the dispute. At that meeting, the first appellant apologized and agreed to provide pacification consisting of ¢40.00, one live sheep, half a piece of white calico and a bottle of rum/schnapps, and he paid ¢10.00 on account. The settlement was further sealed by drink and reported to Kwadwo Agavi, before whom additional customary formalities were performed. Two days later, however, the first appellant reported to the police that the ¢10.00 had been extorted from him, and the respondent then commenced civil proceedings to recover damages/enforce the agreed customary award. Portion of judgment: “After all this discussion, the respondent agreed to accept £G20 ¢40.00, a sheep, half a piece of white calico and a bottle of rum as pacification from the appellant and this was agreed to by the appellant. Five pounds ¢10.00 was there and then paid as part payment...” and “Two days later, the appellant reported to the police that the respondent had extorted £G5 ¢10.00 from him... The result was this action.”

read more

The original claim of the respondent, Daniel Kodzo Ganyo, was for £G100 or ¢200.00. It was brought before the local court. That was in 1966. The local court magistrate after hearing the evidence gave judgment for the respondent and awarded him fifty guineas or ¢105.00 damages against the first appellant. The appellants appealed to the circuit court. That court, while dismissing their appeal as to the liability of the first appellant, altered the damages. In the view of Judge Apatu Plange, who dealt with the case, the issue between the parties having previously been disposed of by an arbitration, it was not open to the local court magistrate to award damages different from what had been awarded at the arbitration. Accordingly, he reversed the order as to damages. The arbitration award, if it is accepted that there was an arbitration, was for ¢40.00, one live sheep, half a piece of calico and a bottle of schnapps. The judge’s order substituted this for the order of the local c...