STANDARD ENGINEERING CO., LTD. vs. NEW TIMES CORPORATION [1974]DLHC444

Date	1974-06-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC444

EDUSEI J.

DR. S. K. DATE-BAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1974]DLHC444
																																						<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" >STANDARD ENGINEERING CO., LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>NEW TIMES CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 409<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:
11 JUNE 1976.<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">

DR. S. K. DATE-BAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs
are claiming damages for libel contained in the Weekly Spectator of 12 October
1974 written by one Yakubu Dadinkai and printed and published by the defendant
corporation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
writer of the article, according to the statement of claim, said in substance
that the State Insurance Corporation was losing large sums of money in motor
claims and this was due to the fact that repair bills were woefully inflated by
workshops and, sometimes, in so far as wayside fitters are concerned, little or
no work was done on the vehicles. The writer went on to say that he visited the
workshop of the plaintiffs and after failing to locate the managing director,
he saw one Mr. Bossman in a melancholy mood and approached him. Mr. Bossman
said to him that he sent his car to the plaintiffs for repairs and the bill was
to be paid by the State Insurance Corporation. The report continued:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Bossman said among the names of approved garages presented to him he chose the
Standard Engineers who have been carrying out minor repairs on his car with
honesty. But he said he was surprised at the rate at which the behaviour of the
workers changed when they got to know that the bill ‘of my damaged car was to
be paid by S.I.C. Instead of replacing the parts damaged with new ones as stated
in the bill to S.I.C., they merely repaired or renovated them,’ Mr. Bossman
said. Mr. Bossman claimed that his shock absorbers, bumpers and brakes which
the fitters claimed to have been replaced with new ones were in fact just
straightened or cleaned and placed back. I asked him whether they had claimed
the money from S.I.C. He answered in the positive and said although the damage
was estimated by S.I.C. at ¢1,982.29, the fitters claimed about ¢2,000.00”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But
before this conversation between the reporter and Bossman, the former said he
looked for the managing director of the plaintiff company without success and
came to this Bossman and inquired about the managing director. Mr. Bossman’s
reply was this “You will never find the director here: in fact there is none as
far as I know.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs are saying that by those words the defendants meant and was
understood to mean that the management of the plaintiff company was dishonest
and fraudulent, that they did not render efficient, competent and prompt
service to their customers and the service rendered to Mr. Bossman was not up
to standard.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants filed a statement of defence and in paragraph (4) stated: “In
further answer to the said paragraphs (3) to (8) of the statement of claim the
defendants say that the matter complained of is fair comment on a matter of
public interest and was published without malice.” In short the defendants
relied on the defence of fair comment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs applied under Order 19, r. 23A of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), for particulars of paragraph (4) of the statement of
defence, requiring the defendants to state the facts, matters and words upon
which they relied in support of their defence of fair comment. The court,
presided over by Griffiths-Randolph J. order</main>