OSAM-PINANKO vs. LARTEY AND ANOTHER [1967]DLHC1526

Date	1967-05-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1526

ARCHER J.

APPLICANT IN PERSON.

DR. DE GRAFT JOHNSON FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1967]DLHC1526
																																						<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" >OSAM-PINANKO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>LARTEY AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 380<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:
26 MAY 1967.<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">

APPLICANT IN PERSON.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>On 1
March 1967, the applicant filed a motion on notice praying for certain reliefs.
The said motion was dismissed as frivolous in the absence of the applicant. He
later applied for the motion to be re-listed as he had sent a telegram asking
the court for adjournment before the motion was dismissed. Leave was granted
and the motion was re-listed. Meanwhile, on 28 March 1967, the applicant had
filed another motion entitled “Amended motion paper to replace the former one
filed on 1 March 1967.” When the applicant’s motion was therefore re-listed for
hearing on 12 May 1967, he dealt with the amended motion filed on 28 March 1967
and not the original motion filed on 1 March 1967.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
application filed on 28 March 1967, the applicant prayed for three specific
reliefs which briefly were 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">(1) An
order of injunction restraining the first respondent Bishop Lartey from
performing his duties as Bishop of the A.M.E. Zion Church because he is guilty
of heresy and also under the Law of Witchcraft Act, 1735 (9 Geo. 2, c. 5), or
the law of trial by ordeal and under the laws of the church.<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">&nbsp;(2) An order of injunction restraining the
said bishop from further interfering with the duties, rights and privileges of
the applicant as a member, elder or minister of the A.M.E. Zion Church and from
continuing to threaten to publish as he did such serious, disgraceful and
offensive charges and allegations as exhibit DI herein.<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) An
order enjoining upon the two respondents herein to publish a letter of apology
in named newspapers for publishing the said exhibit DI.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
having heard the applicant and counsel for the respondents, the applicant
suggested that I should deliver my ruling on 25 May 1967 as that date (which is
today) would be convenient to him. I shall now proceed to deliver my ruling on
the three remedies sought by the applicant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
first place the motion paper referred to a suit No. 16/1963 in which the
present applicant was the plaintiff and the present respondents were the
defendants. In that suit the plaintiff claimed damages for libel published by
the defendants. I delivered my judgment on 23 February 1967 and held that the
defendants were not liable and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. Subsequently,
the plaintiff applied for review of the said judgment but on 12 May 1967, I
decided not to grant the application for review. It seems to me therefore that
the order sought by the applicant to enjoin the defendants to publish a letter
of apology in respect of the alleged libel is misconceived. As I have already
held that the defendants did not libel the plaintiff, no apology by the
defendants seems necessary under any sanction from the court. If the defendants
themselves on their own volition conscientiously feel that they morally owe the
applicant any apology after my judgment, that is a matter entirely for their
common sense and individual sensibilities. As the respondents have rightly
main- tained, this court has become functus officio so far as the plaintiff’s
claim in suit No. 16/1963 is concerned.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second remedy sought in this application is an injunction restraining the first
respondent from interfering with the duties, rights and privileges of the
applicant as a member, elder or minister of the A.M.E. Zion Church and also
restraining the first respondent from continuing to threaten to publish similar
charges and allegations as exhibit DI. When suit No. 16/1963 was heard, the
plaintiff claimed only one remedy, that is, damages for £G50,000 and no more.
He did not claim any other rel</main>