HASSAN vs. KASSARDJIAN CONSTRUCTION LTD., TAMALE [1964]DLHC1907

Date	1964-06-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLHC1907

SOWAH J.

S. K. K. SOTOMEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

D. S. EFFAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1964]DLHC1907
																																						<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" >HASSAN <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KASSARDJIAN CONSTRUCTION LTD., TAMALE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 370<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:
12 JUNE 1964.<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">

S. K. K. SOTOMEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

D. S. EFFAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

SOWAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff, a Lebanese businessman, was arrested at the frontier town of Paga by
the Ghana Police while he was on his way back from Ouagadougou, Upper Volta to
Tamale in Ghana and was taken to Navrongo Police Station. He demanded to see
the warrant for his arrest and the reason thereof. The Navrongo police told him
that they had no warrant but had received instructions to intercept and arrest
him and to escort him to Tamale. The police, it appeared, had either no means
of transport or a driver. The plaintiff therefore had to telephone a friend,
one Moutrage, who gave evidence in his favour. Mr. Moutrage arrived from
Bolgatanga to Navrongo and was allowed to drive the plaintiff in plaintiff’s
own car to Tamale under a police escort who was also lodged in the car.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon
arrival in Tamale he was informed that the defendant company had made a
complaint against him for an alleged fraud. Even though the police knew that
the plaintiff had a business and relations in Tamale, they refused to give him
bail and kept him in custody overnight and he was released on bail at about 11
a.m. the next morning. Assistant Superintendent of Police Ayiretey was the
police officer in charge of the case and when asked why the plaintiff was kept
in custody in view of his own knowledge that the plaintiff had a business in
Tamale he could only say that he received instructions from his senior officer.
I consider the conduct of the police in this respect most oppressive and an
abuse of their powers.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff, as said before, told the court that upon his arrival at the Tamale
Police Station he was informed of the nature of the complaint against him. He
was positive no letter was read to him. In this he was also supported by
Moutrage the man who drove him to the police station at Tamale. The gist of the
complaint was that he had defrauded the defendant company of the sum of £G2,000
which was an advance given to him to supply sand, stone and gravel and that
upon receipt of this advance he never supplied any of the items and made away
with their money. The plaintiff denied this allegation and informed Ayiretey
that the advance was in respect of a business transaction between himself and
the defendant company and that he was in a position to show that he had in fact
supplied some sand, stone and gravel. He compiled certain accounts which
appeared to show that he had supplied sand, stone and gravel to the value of
£G1,458 8s. The police became satisfied that no offence had been committed and
his passport which was seized from him on the date of his arrest was released
to him on 9 February-four days after his arrest.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
complaint made to the police was contained in a letter addressed by the
defendant company dated 1 February 1963. The said letter was pleaded in full in
paragraph four of the statement of defence. As a result of these events the
plaintiff instituted this action claiming £G6,000 damages for libel, £G3,000
damages for wrongful arrest and £G6,000 damages for false imprisonment. In
respect of the libel the plaintiff pleaded in paragraphs two and three of his
statement of claim 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">“2. On 1
February 1963 the defendants falsely and maliciously wrote and published to the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tamale the Chief Superintendent of Police,
Mr. Kpovie of Tamale, Detective Inspector of Police Bempong of Tamale, and to
other persons in the police service, Tamale of the plaintiff; and of him in the
way of his said business inter alia the words following: ‘In regard to the
above transaction we gave him an advance of £G2,000 but immediately this advance
was lent this man has sold his premises, trucks including other properties and
proposes going on leave ... Under the circumstances we shall be pleased if you
will arrange to get hold of him before he leaves Ghana for good so that we can
recover this amount of which the sum of £G800 will be towards income tax.’ 3.
By the said words, the defendants meant and was understood to mean that the
plaintiff was indulging in sharp business practice and attempting to defraud
the defendants and that he owes a debt and cannot or neglects to pay same.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><</main>