AVUUGI vs. ABUGRI [1987]DLSC712

Date	1987-06-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLSC712

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE J.

W. A. ATUGUBAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

ABANGAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1987]DLSC712
																																						<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" >AVUUGI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ABUGRI <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, BOLGATANGA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 515<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 JUNE 1987<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">

W. A. ATUGUBAH FOR THE APPELLANT. <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">

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ESSILFIE-BONDZIE J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of the District Court, Grade II, Bawku dated 28th
November 1986 in which the trial magistrate gave judgment in favour of the
plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for damages for
seduction against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the
defendant). The plaintiff ‘s claims before the court below are 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">“(1) the
plaintiff claims from the defendant ¢24,000 general damages for seducing his
lawful wife by name Faustina Anamlebna Avuugi. <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)
¢20,000 being cost of items used for customary purification rites.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
of this case are briefly as follows: The plaintiff is an accounts officer
working with the District Treasury, Bawku. The defendant is a farmer living at
Teshie village. The plaintiff and the defendant hail from the same village. The
plaintiff has a wife by name Faustina Avuugi. On or about the fourth week of
August 1986 the plaintiff’s wife went to the Zebilla market from Teshie
village. In the night when she was returning to Teshie she met the defendant on
the way also going to Teshie. At a certain spot on the way the defendant
started to fondle the plaintiff’s wife. Faustina Avuugi resisted the advances
of the defendant but the defendant was able to overcome her resistance and had
sexual intercourse with her. Later, when she got home, Faustina Avuugi reported
the incident to her husband (the plaintiff). The plaintiff also reported the
matter to his elders who also complained to the defendant’s elders. It was the
case of the plaintiff that the defendant and his elders subsequently rendered
an apology to his elders through one Akubase and Abagre. The elders of the
defendant were told that as the defendant had admitted committing the offence,
he should come forward to perform the necessary custom to purify the
plaintiff’s wife before she was taken back by the plaintiff. He said he had
been married to the wife for ten years and as there are also three issues of
the marriage, when the defendant refused to perform the said purification rites
he decided to do it himself. For that purpose he bought two sheep for ¢7,000,
malt, firewood and the like for ¢9,000 for brewing pito. He also bought one
cock for ¢400. As the cloth the wife was wearing at the time of the seduction
had to be discarded according to custom, he bought a new cloth and beads
costing ¢3,600 for the wife. The total amount he expended was ¢20,000.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim and denied having had sexual
intercourse with Faustina Avuugi. The trial magistrate found it proved that the
defendant had sexual intercourse with the plaintiff’s wife, Faustina Avuugi. He
therefore gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. He awarded ¢10,000 on each
of the two claims together with costs of ¢500.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the
said judgment that has provoked the appeal before me. Learned counsel for the
defendant filed four grounds, namely:<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">&nbsp;(1) The judgment is against the weight of
evidence.<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) The award of damages has no
basis in Kusasi customary law.<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">(3) The said award is legally
erroneous as being inordinately high and merely a palliative to the plaintiff’s
injured feelings (if any).<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">