DEI vs. PONG [1959]DLHC2008

Date	1959-03-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2008

MURPHY

[1959]DLHC2008
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">DEI <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">PONG<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 135<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
20TH MARCH, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MURPHY<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MURPHY J.<o:p></o:p>(His
Lordship stated the facts and proceeded): -<o:p></o:p>I do not
consider there is any substance in the submission that this action, being one
for slander, should have filed because there was no proof of special damage.
Under section 9(a) of the Native Courts (Ashanti) Ordinance native courts are
charged to administer native law and custom. <o:p></o:p>They can
scarcely be expected to understand, let alone to administer, the intricacies of
the English law of defamation. Other things being equal, in my view no
objection could be taken to the Court’s awarding a small sum to the plaintiff
to compensate him for injury to his reputation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
this case must be considered in the light of what was in fact said by the
defendant, and of the circumstances in which the words were spoken. In
parenthesis, I would say that I find it difficult to see how the words
complained of could be said to be defamatory.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But a
more important consideration is that the words complained of were words spoken
in the course of a judicial proceeding. As I have already indicated, one cannot
apply English law to this matter, but under section 87(1) of the Courts
Ordinance one must be governed by the principles of justice, equity and good
conscience. It does not seem to me to be in accordance with these principles
that an accused person should lay himself open to a civil action by reason of
his taking an objection of this kind at his trial. Admittedly there must be
limits to what the accused can properly say in such circumstances. But, if
these limits are exceeded, sections 17 and 18 of the Native Courts (Ashanti)
Ordinance, which deal respectively with contempt of court and false evidence,
make adequate provision for dealing with such a case.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>