AFRIYIE vs. DANSOWAH [1976]DLHC343

Date	1976-03-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC343

SARKODEE J.

ERSKINE FOR THE APPELLANT.

FORSON FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLHC343
																																						<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" >AFRIYIE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>DANSOWAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 172<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:
5 MARCH, 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">

ERSKINE FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in District Court Grade II,
Takoradi, for slander. The words complained of were that the plaintiff was a
witch and that by her witchcraft she had killed Atta Maame and had taken over
the stall of the deceased in the market and occupied it; that by her act the
plaintiff had committed an offence against Almighty God; finally that every
person in Takoradi market knew that the plaintiff was a witch. By reason of the
words complained of the plaintiff said she had been greatly injured in her
character, credit and reputation. She added that since the defendant uttered
these words, “People fear to buy things from her.” She therefore claimed ¢1,000
damages for slander.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant counterclaimed from the plaintiff the sum of ¢1,000 damages also for
slander. According to the defendant the offending words were that she, the
defendant, was a prostitute who had had sexual intercourse with all the men in
Takoradi although the defendant was married, and lastly that she was a witch.<o:p></o:p>The
magistrate dismissed both the plaintiff’s claim and the counterclaim on the
ground that:<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">“There is
a belief that each of the parties before the court used some kind or kinds of
abusive word, or words against her neighbour, so also I believe that the words
in the claim may or may not be used by the parties against her neighbour.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Above all
he said there was no sufficient evidence before him to believe the stories of
the parties. The plaintiff appealed against the judgment but the defendant did
not appeal against the order dismissing her counterclaim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff and the defendant were both yam sellers at the Takoradi Central
Market. On the day in question someone had wanted to buy yams from the
plaintiff but one Atta called him and he bought those of Atta instead. The
plaintiff queried Atta. Then the defendant suddenly accused the plaintiff of
being envious (“skin pain”). The plaintiff therefore told the defendant she was
not talking to her. The defendant left the scene but returned shortly
afterwards and went straight to the plaintiff’s stall and slanged words at her
in the course of which she uttered the words complained of by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff denied she ever quarrelled with the defendant and said it was the
defendant who rather threatened to beat her up but that she remained in her
stall while the defendant insulted her. After the incident in the market the
defendant made efforts at settlement which failed. It was after this that she
filed her counterclaim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Two main
grounds of appeal were argued on behalf of the plaintiff, namely:<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) That
the judgment was erroneous in law. <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) That
the judgment was against the weight of evidence.”<o:p></o:p>