AMPONG vs. ABORAA [1960]DLHC43

Date	1960-02-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLHC43

SMITH J.

BLAY FOR PLAINTIFF.

GAISIE FOR RESPONDENT.

[1960]DLHC43
																																						<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" >AMPONG <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ABORAA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1960] GLR 29<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:
29TH FEBRUARY, 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">

BLAY FOR PLAINTIFF.<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">

SMITH, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SMITH J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an action for £500 damages for slander. The slanderous words which the
plaintiff alleges that the defendant used were “slave and beast.”<o:p></o:p>I have no
hesitation in accepting the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses that the
defendant did in fact call the plaintiff by these names. That being so, the
question is whether this action is one which should have been tried in the
native court and not in the Supreme Court. Counsel for the defendant relied on
the case of Kwaku v. Addo (2 W.A. L.R. 306). He argued that if the action was
founded on English law it should be dismissed, because there was no proof of
any special damage; alternatively, if it was founded on native law and custom
then the case was at variance with the writ of summons. I would have agreed
with this latter contention, but the plaintiff before trial sought and was given
leave to amend his statement of claim by adding another paragraph as follows:-<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">“The
plaintiff maintains that by native law and custom the words published by the
defendant constitute actionable slander.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I think
that this amendment satisfied Order 19, Rule 31 of the Supreme Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954, and I hold that it makes the case clearly one based on
native law and custom. There is therefore no reason in law why this court
should not entertain the suit. The next question is whether the epithet “slave”
by itself constitutes slander according to native law and custom. I think that
there is no doubt that it does, and being universally regarded as such it
required no further specific pleading. In my opinion the plaintiff is entitled
to succeed in this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
measure of damages is difficult. The plaintiff claims as much as £500 for the
very reason, as Mr. Blay (his counsel) points out, that times have changed
since Sarbah’s days, when the punishment for slander was public ridicule and a
small fine. It is obvious nowadays that the matter can only be dealt with by
awarding the slandered person sufficient pecuniary compensation, the amount
depending, of course, on the position of the individual concerned and the
circumstances of the case. On the other hand, as time has passed, the word
“slave” may have lost a lot of its provocative nature. I should think that
nowadays the expression may quite well not carry its former odium and disgrace,
and the plaintiff admitted that he would have accepted an apology in the form
of customary pacification. The plaintiff alleges in paragraph 4 of his
statement of claim that in “consequence of the said words, the plaintiff has
been greatly injured, and his candidature for the Akropong Stool has been
jeopardised.” I should say that some evidence is necessary to support that. If
it were proved I would award higher damages than could be awarded in the native
court. There is, however, no evidence as to the damage that the plaintiff has
suffered, nor that his candidature for the Akropong Stool has been jeopardised.<o:p></o:p>In all
the circumstances I award the plaintiff £50 damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

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