BRIGHT vs. GRAPHIC CORPORATION [1980]DLHC1049

Date	1980-01-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1049

OSEI-HWERE J.

THE PLAINTIFF IN PERSON.

E. M. AMPONSAH-DADZIE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1980]DLHC1049
																																						<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" >BRIGHT <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GRAPHIC CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST ]<o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 833<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:
15 JANUARY 1980<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">

THE PLAINTIFF IN PERSON.<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">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s claim against the defendants is for “a return of two printing
blocks on swollen shoot or their value of ¢30,000.” In his amended statement of
claim the plaintiff pleaded the following pertinent matters among others:<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) The
plaintiff is a physiotherapist and naturopathic physician and doctor of botanic
medicine, practising in Cape Coast, and the defendants, a daily newspaper
corporation doing business all over the country and in Cape Coast, with
headquarters in Accra.<o:p></o:p>(2) On 28
February 1972, the plaintiff despatched a block of healthy and unhealthy cocoa
plants on swollen shoot, with an article on swollen shoot for publication for
the public to know we have a man here to do the job, instead of asking from
abroad; though not advert as it may mean. (3) The defendant-corporation refused
or failed to do the publication, and so the plaintiff called for the return of
the two blocks, and despite repeated demands the blocks have not been returned
to the plaintiff. (4) On 7 October 1976, the editor in the person of Mr. I. K.
Nkrumah wrote to say that the blocks had been misplaced and that plaintiff
should send the art-work of the swollen shoot to enable them to make new blocks
for replacement.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
evidence of the plaintiff it was actually a two-in-one block on swollen shoot
that he despatched together with his article for publication, and he tendered
in evidence as exhibit A the print impression of the blocks. Before the editor
of the defendants-corporation came to write the letter mentioned in paragraph
(4) of the statement of claim, the plaintiff had written to the then Head of
State, General I. K. Acheampong, complaining about the defendants’ attitude of
nonchalance towards the article he had sent for publication and also about
their failure to return his blocks. His copy of the letter to the then Head of
State is exhibit C and the letter from the editor, Mr. I. K. Nkrumah, exhibit
D. This letter from the editor is worthy to be quoted in full and it ran:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Dear
Sir, <o:p></o:p>SWOLLEN
SHOOT BLOCK HEALTHY AND UNHEALTHY COCOA TREE We refer to your letter of 21 July
1976 addressed to the office of the Supreme Military Council on the
above-mentioned subject-matter and regret to inform you that the two printing
blocks on swollen shoot referred to have been misplaced. We are therefore asking
you to send us copy of the art-work of the swollen shoot to enable us make new
blocks to replace the missing ones. You will appreciate the fact that the
Editor of the Graphic who might have received your letter in 1972 is no longer
on the staff of the corporation. Your letter to the office of the S.M.C. was
therefore news to the present Editor since there is nothing on file about your
swollen shoot blocks. Hoping to hear from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours faithfully (Sgd.) I. K. Nkrumah Editor, Graphic.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Following
this letter, the plaintiff said that he sent a copy of exhibit A to the
defendants from which they could make the blocks in replacement. The defendants
subsequently published in their newspaper part of the article he sent to them
and the pictures similar to the art-work in exhibit A also appeared with the
publication. The Daily Graphic of Friday 6 May 1977 in which the publication
appeared was tendered as exhibit E. When he saw the pictures in exhibit E he
thought that they had produced the correct block and so he wrote to the
defendants and later followed up to collect the blocks. The defendants gave him
a block but, metaphorically speaking, as he is not that bird who could easily
be caught with chaff, he demanded that they strike on paper a specimen of the
pictures that the block produces. They complied and what came</main>