KWARTENG vs. SACKEY AND ANOTHER [1985]DLCA936

Date	1985-11-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA936

ADADE JSC

AMUA-SEKYI J

AMPIAH J

W O BOAFO (FOR FRIMPONG-BOADU) FOR THE APPELLANT.

THERESA AMASSAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1985]DLCA936
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KWARTENG<o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 141<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
20 NOVEMBER 1985<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

W
O BOAFO (FOR FRIMPONG-BOADU) FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

THERESA
AMASSAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

ADADE JSC, AMUA-SEKYI AND AMPIAH JJ<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.<o:p></o:p>Amua-Sekyi
J. delivered the judgment of the court. The plaintiff, Peter Osusu Kwarteng,
brought an action in the High Court, Accra against the defendants claiming
damages for certain wrongs he alleges he suffered at the hand of Sackey, the first
defendant, while he was in Liberia. Sackey was at the time chargé d’affaires at
the Ghana Embassy. The Attorney-General is sued as representing the Government
of Ghana. The defendants filed a defence to the action denying the various
allegations made by the plaintiff. Issue having been joined, the next step was
for the court to take evidence and come to a decision as to whether or not the
allegations were true. However, at that stage the defendants raised an
objection to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that Sackey enjoyed
diplomatic immunity. The objection was set out in a notice of amendment and is
in the following terms:<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
defendant will at the hearing of this suit contend by way of preliminary
objection that the plaintiff’s action cannot hold in law in that the first
defendant was at the material time and now the chargé d’affaires of the Ghana
Embassy in Monrovia, Liberia and that all actions taken by him were done in his
official capacity and is privileged under diplomatic immunity. <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">2. Once
the action taken by the first defendant was covered by diplomatic immunity the
second defendant is not vicariously liable.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants relied on article 38 (1) in the Schedule of the Diplomatic
Immunities Act, 1962 (Act 148). The learned judge agreed and dismissed the
action.<o:p></o:p>We have
read article 38 (1), but we are unable to see how it applies to the case as
presented by the plaintiff or the defendants. The article reads:<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.
Except insofar as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the
receiving State, a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently
resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and
inviolability, in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his
functions.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It has
not been suggested that Sackey is a citizen of Liberia or permanently resident
there. It follows, therefore, that whether the acts complained of were official
or private the said article has no relevance to this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
admitted that Sackey is a citizen of Ghana and a person sent by the Government
of Ghana to take charge of its embassy in Monrovia. In terms of the Vienna
Convention which Act 148 gives effect to, he is entitled to diplomatic immunity
while in Liberia or travelling through foreign countries to or from Liberia.
The immunity includes immunity from suit: see Armon v Katz [1976] 2 GLR 115,
CA. However, no such immunity exists for him in his own country. This much, at
least, is clear from article 31 (4) which reads:<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">“31 (4).
The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State
does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.”<o:p</main>