BONSU vs. FORSON [1964]DLSC1881

Date	1964-01-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1881

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

OLLENNU JSC

BLAY J.S.C.

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. OWUSU-YAW FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1881
																																						<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" >BONSU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>FORSON <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 45<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:
27 JANUARY 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">

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. OWUSU-YAW 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">

SARKODEE-ADOO, OLLENNU AND BLAY JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>We
dismissed the appeal in this case on 8 January 1964 reserving our reasons for
so doing; we now proceed to give the reasons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By his
writ of summons the plaintiff claimed £G15,000 and an order for injunction
restraining the defendant from speaking and publishing defamatory words against
him. The writ itself disclosed no cause of action; but this defect, however,
was cured by the statement of claim which was filed together with the writ of
summons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff was at all material times a legal practitioner and a member of Parliament
for the Sekyere West electoral district; he occupied a flat in house No. AA8,
Kwame Nkrumah Road, Kumasi, as a tenant of the defendant. He and the defendant
had been friends for a number of years prior to the incident which led to the
action; and from letters he wrote to the defendant while a student in the
United Kingdom, which were admitted in evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff
had, in the past, regarded the defendant as his benefactor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The words
complained of are: (1) “You are a thief”; (2) “You are a hopeless lawyer; Se
ennye Owusu Afriyie a anka wonnya asem nni”; (3) “You are a hopeless M.P.” In
respect of these words the plaintiff pleaded in paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) of
his statement of claim that:<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">“(7) By
the words `You are a thief’ the defendant meant and was understood to mean that
the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment. <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">(8) By
the words `You are a hopeless lawyer; Se ennye Owusu Afriyie a anka wonnya asem
nni’ the defendant meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff was
incompetent and inefficient in his profession as a lawyer. <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">(9) By
the words `You are a hopeless M.P.’ the defendant meant and was understood to
mean that the plaintiff was unfit and of no use in his office as a member of Parliament
for the Sekyere West electoral district.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant denied speaking or publishing the words as alleged by the plaintiff;
he further pleaded that even if the said words were uttered and published, they
were not, in the circumstances of the case understood to bear any meaning
defamatory of the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>Upon
these pleas the following issues were joined: (1) Whether or not the defendant
spoke and published the words complained of; (2) whether or not the words
complained of are defamatory or were understood to bear a meaning defamatory of
the plaintiff; and (3) The quantum of damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
questions (1) whether or not the words were spoken and published and (2)
whether or not they are defamatory of the plaintiff, are questions of fact
which, in a trial by jury, would be left by the judge to t</main>