AMOAKO vs. TAKORADI TIMBERS LIMITED [1982]DLHC2085

Date	1982-06-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLHC2085

TWUMASI J.

FORSON SARPON & CO. FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

ATTA-ERSKINE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1982]DLHC2085
																																						<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" >AMOAKO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TAKORADI TIMBERS LIMITED <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] GLR 69<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:
28 JUNE 1982<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">

FORSON, SARPON &amp; CO. FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

ATTA-ERSKINE 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 0in 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff is a timber merchant trading under the name and style of Temaco
Supply Co., Ltd., and under a trade mark TSC. The defendants are also a timber
merchant company trading under the name and style of Takoradi Timbers Co., Ltd.
Both companies buy and export timber.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On or about
21 February 1980, the plaintiff consigned to Takoradi Harbour six wawa logs.
Before shipment of the logs could commence the defendants wrote a letter to the
principal technical officer of the Forestry Department, Takoradi, requesting
the latter not to issue his authority for the shipment of the logs until
investigations had been made to find out the source of the logs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants alleged in that letter that they had reason to believe that the logs
could not have come from the plaintiff’s concession. The defendants’ contention
was that they had reason to believe that the logs had come from one J.S.
Bansah’s concession but had been diverted to the plaintiff’s company. The
defendants in their letter requested the principal technical officer to inspect
the stumps of the logs in the bush to determine their sources.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
principal technical officer of the timber inspection section of the Forestry
Department had a duty to investigate complaints of the nature made by the
defendants. The reasons given by the defendants for their belief could be
briefly stated. According to them on or about 22 February 1980 the defendants’
harbour clerks received a waybill covering six wawa logs loaded on vehicles
numbers ER 413 and GJ 7635 prepared by one J.S. Bansah with property marks
MBAG.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
driver who submitted the said waybills later withdrew them saying it was a
mistake and that the logs, although covered by waybills belonging to the said
J.S. Bansah, were not meant for the defendants. When the clerks inspected the logs
they found to their dismay that the logs bore the property marks of the
plaintiff. The defendants were therefore put on their inquiry as to the
ownership of the six wawa logs. Under their agreement with the defendants, J.S.
Bansah was under an obligation to supply all logs from his concession to the
defendants to the exclusion of all other timber merchants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
evidence the principal technical officer said that it was his official duty to
investigate such complaints as the one made to him by the defendants but that
when he investigated the defendants’ complaint he found that the logs in fact
came from the plaintiff’s concession. He therefore wrote to the defendants to
withdraw their complaints which the latter did.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff brought this action against the defendants claiming damages for
defamation alleging that the letter written by the defendants imputed to him
theft of the six wawa logs from J.S. Bansah’s concession. From the facts as
narrated it is quite clear that the business interest of the defendants was at
stake at the time the letter was written and that the letter was addressed to a
person who had a duty to investigate the allegation. Therefore even assuming
that the contents of the letter were defamatory of the plaintiff it is clear that
the occasion was privileged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&</main>