ABOTCHIE vs. NUUMO [1973]DLHC2241

Date	1973-12-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2241

ABBAN J.

[1973]DLHC2241
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">ABOTCHIE<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">NUUMO <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1974] 1 GLR 142<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:
7 DECEMBER 1973.<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">

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

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>[His
lordship in his ruling on the issue as to whether witchcraft could be proved
and if so the mode of proof, said:] Sarbah in his book Fanti Customary Laws
(3rd ed.) at p. 113 clearly states that “words imputing witchcraft” as in the
present case, “are actionable and it is not necessary for the plaintiff in such
a case to prove any special damage.” Danquah in Cases in Akan Law at p. xxiii
agrees with Sarbah on this point and states that “it covers such serious
assertions as that a person is an Odonkoba son of a slave, an Obayifo, a witch
. . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
case under consideration, the defendant admits uttering the offensive words
which imputed witchcraft to the plaintiff. The words in question are:<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">“Tell
your sister [meaning the plaintiff] that the reason why I do not speak to her
is that she is a witch and she leads a gang of witches to come and eat me up.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court
must act with considerable caution in allowing fetish priests to testify as to
the truth of such a statement. In African tradition, it is believed that
witchcraft exists even though its existence has not been established by any
admissible evidence. This is one of the cases where the court may find that a
fact exists although there is no testimony on the subject and although no
relevant document, thing or evidential fact is produced or proved.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It will
be noticed that the textbooks referred to supra and in fact other textbooks on
customary law, do not even attempt to give any indication as to how or as to
the method a party, in the position of the defendant, can adopt to prove her
allegation that the plaintiff practices witchcraft. That is, textbooks on
customary law do not prescribe the method by which a witchcraft can be proved
in a court of law. There are also no decided cases on this, at least, my
research has not revealed any. In my considered opinion, the traditional mode
or method of proving witchcraft which the defendant intends to adopt or follow
has not gained any recognition in the courts of law. Furthermore, there are
several other objections to such a traditional method of proof. In the first
place, the evidence which the fetish priest will offer to show that the
plaintiff is a witch will be nothing but hearsay and therefore inadmissible. I
will like to elaborate on this.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Judicial
notice may be taken of the fact that a fetish priest has a fetish or juju, and
he is the spokesman of his juju or fetish. He consults his fetish or juju as an
oracle and he performs his functions according to the dictates of his fetish or
juju; and whatever the fetish priest will say about the plaintiff, if he is
given the chance to give evidence, will be what has been communicated to him
mystically by his fetish or juju. This is a clear case of hearsay. In other
words, the evidence to be offered by a fetish priest will be within the
province of hearsay. Hearsay evidence, as will be recalled, is proof by a
witness who relates what he was told of the fact by some person, who may have
perceived it himself or may have obtained his information from any source. Here
no one can prove the source from which the fetish or the juju may obtain the
information which will be imparted or communicated to the priest who will in
turn mount the witness-box to repeat the same to the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>