ANTHONY vs. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF CAPE COAST [1973]DLHC2361

Date	1973-12-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2361

EDWARD WIREDU J.

DE GRAFT AIDOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

J.B. SHORT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1973]DLHC2361
																																						<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" >ANTHONY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF CAPE COAST <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE
COAST]<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;[1973]
1 GLR 299<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
19 DECEMBER 1972.<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">

DE GRAFT AIDOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

J.B. SHORT 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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in this case is a married woman and a prominent member of the
Catholic Mboa Kuw a benevolent religious society in Cape Coast. She is by
vocation a seamstress and a trader in textiles. On the evidence she seems to
enjoy a prominent position and respect in both her family of origin and her
marital family and also of the said Mboa Kuw of which society until the last
elections she was its president. She is also the mother of about three
children. The University College of Cape Coast (herein called the defendants),
is an institution in the same town and as its name implies is one of the
highest academic forums of learning in Ghana.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Some time
in the month of June 1971 the defendants published and advertised several
copies of the plaintiff’s photographs in the form of postcards printed at their
central photographic studio and exhibited them for sale at the university
bookshop at a price of twenty pesewas each. At the back of each postcard were
the following: “Traditional hairdo in Ghana.” A copy of this photograph was
tendered in evidence at the trial and accepted as exhibit A. The evidence shows
that information got to the plaintiff about the publication and sale of her
photographs at the defendants’ bookshop through the plaintiff’s fifth witness,
her husband, who had earlier been informed of the same by the plaintiff’s
second witness his son by the plaintiff. As a result of events which followed
the discovery of the publication and sale of copies of exhibit A, the plaintiff
caused her solicitors to write to the defendants to demand compensation. On
receipt of an unfavourable reply to her demand, she commenced this action for
damages.<o:p></o:p>By her
writ of summons she claimed against the defendants 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">“The
plaintiff’s claim is for: N¢40,000.00 damages for libel committed against the
plaintiff by the defendants by unlawfully printing, publishing and selling the
plaintiff’s photograph in the form of postcards at the defendants’ bookshop since
about January 1971, without the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, and
fraudulently deceiving the public and her family into believing that the
plaintiff had lent herself to such mean advertisement and lives and thrives on
earnings therefrom and that it is the defendants’ lawful product or
production.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
paragraph (6)-(11) of her accompanying statement of claim she did not complain
of the picture nor the inscriptions at the back of the postcard as being
defamatory in themselves but alleged an innuendo in the following terms:<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">“(6) The
said unlawful printing and publication of the plaintiff’s photograph in the
form of postcards, sold without the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, were
intended to diminish and indeed have diminished the esteem in which the
plaintiff is held in the plaintiff’s trade and in both the plaintiff’s family
of origin and family of her own, and in society, and have greatly injured the
character, reputation and moral standing and trade of the plaintiff as to
unlawful printing and publication implied that the plaintiff had lent herself
to it. <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 said unlawful printing and publication of the plaintiff’s photograph the
defendants are understood to mean that the plaintiff is (i) a woman and (ii) a
married woman of base, weak and mean moral character and lives and thrives on
earnings from such cheap and mean advertisements. <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">