ZOGLI AND ANOTHER vs. GANYO [1977]DLCA1442

Date	1977-12-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA1442

AMISSAH JA

JIAGGE JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH JA

AKAINYAH FOR THE APPELLANT

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1977]DLCA1442
																																						<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" >ZOGLI AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GANYO <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977]1 GLR 297<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
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">

AKAINYAH 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">

AMISSAH, JIAGGE AND KINGSLEY-NYINAH
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>The original
claim of the respondent, Daniel Kodzo Ganyo, was for £G100 or ¢200.00. It was
brought before the local court. That was in 1966. The local court magistrate
after hearing the evidence gave judgment for the respondent and awarded him
fifty guineas or ¢105.00 damages against the first appellant. The appellants
appealed to the circuit court. That court, while dismissing their appeal as to
the liability of the first appellant, altered the damages. In the view of Judge
Apatu Plange, who dealt with the case, the issue between the parties having
previously been disposed of by an arbitration, it was not open to the local
court magistrate to award damages different from what had been awarded at the
arbitration.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Accordingly,
he reversed the order as to damages. The arbitration award, if it is accepted
that there was an arbitration, was for ¢40.00, one live sheep, half a piece of
calico and a bottle of schnapps. The judge’s order substituted this for the
order of the local court. The appellants still being dissatisfied have appealed
to this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Only a
point of principle of considerable importance could have brought them this far
on such a subject-matter, seeing that what they stand to lose whether they win
this appeal or not could be far in excess of what they insist they are being
asked wrongfully to pay by the lower courts.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Even
though the record shows that there are two appellants, I will from now on limit
my references to that side of the dispute to the first appellant (whom I shall
describe as the “appellant”) as the orders of the two courts were against him
alone. The complaint of the appellant before us was that there was no
arbitration between the parties, the award of which the circuit judge could
legitimately say that he was obliged to give effect to. But that there was a
meeting between the respondent and the appellant in the presence of a third
party in an effort to resolve the differences between the parties is not in
dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A
daughter of the respondent once had a quarrel with the appellant’s son who was
the second defendant in the case. Both youngsters were school-children. They
and their parents lived in a rural community in the Tepa area in Ashanti. The
quarrel took place at the school. In the course of that quarrel, the
appellant’s son had said some very defamatory things about the respondent and
his wife to their daughter. She was, according to the appellant’s son, not the
daughter of the respondent at all, the respondent having hired another man to
have intercourse with her mother, Akosua Ganyo, which resulted in the
daughter’s birth. Further the appellant’s son had accused the respondent of
being in the habit of giving his wives to other men to father his children.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Naturally,
the report of these statements reaching the respondent and his wife’s ear
caused grave concern and grief. The wife made a report to one Kwadwo Agavi. But
before Agavi could do anything about the matter, the appellant and one Okovi
Ahorli appeared at the respondent’s village on a mission to settle the
differences which had arisen between the two families as a result of the
statements made by the appellant’s son.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the evidence accepted by the magistrate, Okovi Ahorli told the respondent
that the appellant had asked him to settle the matter. There was some
discussion about </main>