OSUMANU AND ANOTHER vs. TARIBABU [1977]DLHC1386

Date	1977-11-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLHC1386

EDWARD WIREDU J.

IBRAHIM MAHAMA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

R. I. ALHASSAN FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1977]DLHC1386
																																						<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" >OSUMANU AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TARIBABU <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>[1977]1 GLR 417<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:
29 NOVEMBER
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">

IBRAHIM MAHAMA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

R. I. ALHASSAN FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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 J.<o:p></o:p>The
parties to this suit are all Dagomba citizens. The first plaintiff being the
son of the second plaintiff. The events which seem to have provoked the present
controversy between them as pleaded by the plaintiffs are 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">“About
1967 the defendant informed his son, Iddrisu Fuseini, that he, the defendant,
is the father of the first plaintiff and the said Iddrisu Fuseini in the
presence of and to the hearing of other persons told the first plaintiff that
the defendant is the father of the first plaintiff. On or about 8 November 1970
the defendant in the presence of and to the hearing of other persons at
Kumbungu told the second plaintiff that he, the defendant, is the father of the
first plaintiff. The statement of the defendant that the first plaintiff is the
defendant’s son might reasonably be interpreted to mean and it was so
understood to mean by those to whom it was published that the first plaintiff
does not know who his father is, and further that the second plaintiff is
dishonest. The plaintiffs say that by the defendant’s claim that the first plaintiff
is his son the defendant has injured the reputation of the plaintiffs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant joined issue with the plaintiffs on their claim and pleaded by
paragraph (4) to (7) of his defence 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">“(4) In
further answer to paragraph (5) of the statement of claim the defendant will
say that in or about the month of November 1970 the second plaintiff lodged a
complaint to the Kumbungu chief butcher whereupon the defendant was called and
asked about his previous abortive marriage to the second plaintiff. The
defendant in accordance with Dagomba custom narrated the incident. <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">(5) The
plaintiffs therefore authorised and/or assented to and/or acquiesced in the
publication of the said incident. <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
defendant denies ever calling the first plaintiff his son, as alleged in
paragraph (6) of the statement of claim. Alternatively the defendant denies
that the words if they were published at all, which is denied, bore or were
understood to bear to are capable or bearing any other meaning defamatory of
the plaintiffs. <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)
Paragraph (7) of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim is denied.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
trial, the plaintiffs produced evidence by themselves and two other witnesses.
The sum total of that evidence reveals that the matters complained of were
published on two occasions and at different places. The first publication is
alleged to have taken place in Tamale where the son of the defendant, the first
defence witness, is alleged to have published the matters pleaded in paragraph
(4) of the statement of claim and the second publication as pleaded in
paragraph (5) thereof by the defendant himself at Kumbungu village.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence produced by the plaintiffs and their witnesses in respect of the
publication in Tamale is riddled with such serious inconsistencies that it is
unworthy of any credit. The plaintiffs’ claim on that leg therefore fails. That
aspect of the case, however, raises one matter of some legal interest, namely,
the extent and scope of liability of an originator of a libellous or slanderous
matter. The law on this as stated in Gatley on Libel and Slander (6th ed.),
para 274 at pp. 135-136 reads as follows:<o:p></o:p>