AMEGBE vs. TEPA [1960]DLCA49

Date	1960-01-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLCA49

KORSAH C.J

VAN LARE J.A.

GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.

DR. DANQUAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1960]DLCA49
																																						<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" >AMEGBE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>TEPA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1960] GLR 7<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
19TH JANUARY, 1960.<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">

DR. DANQUAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></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">

KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE J.A. AND
GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORSAH C.J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court, Accra refusing to grant an
order of certiorari to remove and quash the proceedings and judgment of the
Kpandu District Native Court “A” in a suit in which plaintiff claimed damages
for defamation. He alleged that he had been slandered in that the defendant had
said at a public meeting:-<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a) That plaintiff must cease
applying the title of “Odikro” to himself;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) That he (the defendant) would
sue plaintiff before any competent court if plaintiff continued using the title
of “Odikro”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff had, in fact, been elected and installed, and had been known as
“odikro” over a period of eight years, and there has been, and is, no dispute
as to this fact.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant admitted publishing these words concerning the plaintiff, and
explained that he gave this warning because one Katamantu once said in an
arbitration that the real post or title of the plaintiff in the Twi language is
“mankrado” and not “odikro”, Defendant further contended that the predecessors
of the plaintiff were called “afetor” and not “odikro”. It should be noted that
“afetor” means in the Ewe language “head of a house” (that is, of a community).
The Twi title “odikro” means precisely the same thing. The Native Court
rejected the defendant’s explanation, held that the plaintiff had been
slandered, and entered judgment for him for £70 damages and costs.<o:p></o:p>There has
been no appeal from that judgment of the Native Court on the merits. Counsel
for the defendant elected rather to take his stand upon a contention that the
proceedings instituted by the plaintiff raised a question relating to political
or constitutional relations (under customary law) between chiefs, which, under
the State Councils (Colony and Southern Togoland) Ordinance, is triable only by
the State Council. It is enough to say that we accept the contrary view,
expressed by the learned judge who heard the application, that it is not such a
matter, but is a personal suit over which the Native Court had full
jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We would
wish to take this opportunity of pointing out that justice may well be defeated
by a party who accords too much importance to, and lays an exaggerated and (as
in this case) unjustifiable emphasis upon, the impingement of the law relating
to constitutional matters on the facts of a case. In the present case, if there
was a slander at all (and we for ourselves would say that it is a moot point)
it is a slander of such trivial significance as to merit an award of damages
much less than was awarded by the Native Court. We are precluded, however, as
was also the learned trial judge from passing judgment on the Native Court’s
award of £70 damages with costs, by reason of the fact that the appellant’s
advisers have chosen to raise a constitutional issue, and to apply for the prerogative
writ of certiorari on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction in the Native Court.
It is upon the learned judge’s ruling on that application (and on that alone)
that the appeal comes before the court.<o:p></o:p>We
therefore dismiss this appeal.<o:p></o:p>

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