OPPONG vs. ADVANCE PRESS CO., LTD. [1980]DLHC1094

Date	1980-02-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1094

EDWARD WIREDU J.

PETER ALA ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

A. Q. A. ARCHAMPONG FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1980]DLHC1094
																																						<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" >OPPONG <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADVANCE PRESS CO., LTD.<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 842<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:
25 FEBRUARY 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">

PETER ALA ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

A. Q. A. ARCHAMPONG FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>On or
about 22 May 1973, the plaintiffs issued out of this court a writ of summons
against the defendants with the following indorsement:<o:p></o:p>“¢20,000
damages for libel published of an concerning their grand and great-grandparent
one Kai Nka now deceased which said libel is defamatory of the plaintiffs and
appeared in a pamphlet entitled ‘Observance of Funeral Rites of the late
Otublohum Chiefs and Elders’ as follows: ‘However, Kai Nka claimed that, being
a queenmother, her son was the rightful heir and one night in December 1930,
she burgled the stoolroom, broke the door and stole the stool, carrying if off
to Ankra’s house.”<o:p></o:p>On
September 5 that same year a five-paragraph statement of claim on behalf of the
plaintiffs was filed which also read:<o:p></o:p>“(1) the first and the third plaintiffs are grandchildren of
the late Kai Nka, deceased, stool mother of Otuoblohum, and direct descendants
of Otu Brafo the founder of Otublohum. The second plaintiff is the daughter of
the first plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(2) The defendants are a limited liability company which
printed and published a pamphlet entitled ‘Observance of Funeral Rites of the
late Otuoblohum Chiefs and Elders.’ <o:p></o:p>(3) In the said pamphlet appeared the following words
concerning the said late Kai Nka, the ancestress of the plaintiffs: ‘In this
way it happened that a woman, Kai NKa, of the Ankra house, was a stool washer,
or stood mother, of the Otublohum stool. This woman started calling herself, in
English, ‘queenmother,’ trading on the general ignorance of Ga custom and the
widespread knowledge of the Ashanti custom (popularized by the work of Captain
Rattray) whereby a ‘queenmother’ is the mother of the stool heir. There no such
queenmother among the Ga. However, Kai Nka claimed that, being a queenmother,
her son was the rightful heir; and one night in December 1930, she burgled the
stoolroom, broke the door and stole the stool, carrying it off to Ankra’s
house. The officials and electors of Otublohum, who had not then — and still
have not — nominated a candidate, summoned her for criminal burglary; but on
the advice of British officials, had the case transferred from the police court
to the Ga State Council, on the grounds that it was a ‘stool affair’ and police
cases, around stool affairs were undesirable.’ <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(4) The plaintiffs will contend that the above extract and
particularly the portion beginning with ‘and one night in December 1930’ and
ending with ‘to Ankra’s house ‘ is grossly defamatory of the said Kai Nka and
is also defamatory of the plaintiffs in the sense that the publication has
besmirched the reputation of the plaintiffs since by reason thereof, the
plaintiffs will be considered to be the descendants of a thief or a burglar. <o:p></o:p>(5) The plaintiffs contend that by the publication of the
said words they have been much injured in their credit and reputation and have
suffered damage. WHEREFORE the plaintiffs’ claim as per the writ of summons.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants on 18 February 1974 filed the following statement of defence:<o:p></o:p>