SOADWAH ALIAS SONDURA AND OTHERS vs. OBENG AND OTHERS [1966]DLSC1750

Date	1966-05-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1750

MILLS-ODOI JSC

AKAINYAH JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN SNR. FOR. THE FIRST APPELLANT.

O APPEARANCE FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.

[1966]DLSC1750
																																						<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" >SOADWAH ALIAS SONDURA AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>OBENG AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 338<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:
2 MAY 1966.<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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, SNR., FOR. THE FIRST APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

MILLS-ODOI, AKAINYAH AND SIRIBOE
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MILLS-ODOI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>I agree
with the reasons in the judgment which my brother Akainyah is about to read for
our allowing this appeal. It is not necessary to recapitulate the facts in this
case; they are clearly and exhaustively stated in the judgment of my brother.
Nor is it necessary for me to say more as to the conclusions to be drawn from
the facts.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
is relatively simple. It is not in dispute that the appellant transmitted to
the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ashanti, a letter dated 13 May 1960
(exhibit B) in which he complained that his house had been broken into and that
some of his personal effects had been stolen by the respondents. The letter was
accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the appellant; it was marked exhibit E
in the court below. It is equally not in dispute that the respondents were
prosecuted before the district court at Goaso upon the charge of stealing from
the dwelling-house of the appellant and were acquitted and discharged. The real
bone of controversy is that the respondents say that the appellant and two
others maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause preferred an
unfounded charge against them and initiated the prosecution which terminated in
their favour. On the other hand the appellant says all that he did was that he
merely gave information to the police who exercised their discretion and came
to the conclusion that there was a proper case to be laid before the criminal
court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
arises therefore the legal question whether the prosecution was instituted by
the appellant. Fortunately, in finding an answer to this question, I have cases
direct on the point to guide me and I need not search through the labyrinth of
judicial decisions on malicious prosecution. As was said by Korsah C.J. in
Aubin v. Ehunaku1:<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">“In order
that an action may lie for malicious prosecution the following conditions must
be fulfilled: <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">(1) The
prosecution must have been instituted by the defendant; <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) He
must have acted without reasonable and probable cause; <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">(3) He
must have acted maliciously; <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">(4) The
proceedings must have been unsuccessful—that is to say, they must have
terminated in favour of the plaintiff. It will be observed that, from the
nature of these conditions, a plaintiff will fail unless it can be proved that
all those conditions are fulfilled. Failure to prove one of them will be fatal
to a plaintiff’s case.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
subject was discussed with much fullness of learning in Onogen v. Leventis
&amp; Co., Ltd.2 and Yeboah v. Boateng VII.3 In the latter case, Crabbe J.S.C.
in reading the judgment of the court, stated what are the essential
requirements of a successful action for malicious prosecution in the following
words4:<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
first duty of a plaintiff in an action for mal</main>