POBEE vs. BARNAFO AND OTHERS [1988]DLHC2288

Date	1988-03-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLHC2288

LUTTERODT J.

B. A. YANKSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

S. A. X. TSEGAH FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.

E. K. AGBOTSE FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD DEFENDANTS.

[1988]DLHC2288
																																						<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" >POBEE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BARNAFO
AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 166<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 11 MARCH 1988<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>B. A.
YANKSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>S. A. X.
TSEGAH FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.<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">

E. K.
AGBOTSE FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD DEFENDANTS. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF LUTTERODT J.<o:p></o:p>As the
first defendant’s defence raised a number of legal issues, the same were, upon
an application brought by his counsel, set down for argument. The first issue
which reads thus:<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">“Whether
or not the proceedings in an inquiry before the Ombudsman and the various
exhibits tendered at the said inquiry and as referred to in paragraphs 13-16 of
the statement of claim are not absolutely privileged by virtue of section
15(31) of the Ombudsman Act, 1980 (Act 400),” raises no problems whatsoever.
Both counsel are agreed that such material are absolutely privileged.<o:p></o:p>The next
question is also formulated thus: “That the said proceedings at the said
inquiry cannot ground an action for defamation.” I should think this is a
correct statement of the law, for the simple reason that if they are absolutely
privileged they cannot form the basis of or ground for any action for
defamation.<o:p></o:p>In my
view therefore, the plaintiff cannot use the information he collected or
gathered at the Ombudsman to found any action in defamation. More importantly
by the relevant paragraph (14) of his statement of claim he confesses it was at
the hearing before the Ombudsman that he saw the minutes produced by the first
defendant when submitting their case. The defendant cannot use this material to
found an action in defamation because it is an absolutely privileged material.
It would seem to me therefore that at the hearing of the substantive suit the
plaintiff can never be heard to repeat orally or produce the minutes of the
Interim Management Committee (I.M.C.) which forms the basis of his claim and
which he procured at the hearing before the Ombudsman. Put in other words,
because he came by those documents following the trial at the Ombudsman, they
never be used to found the plaintiff’s action. This should answer the third
issue as raised in the motion.<o:p></o:p>Finally,
the communications between the first defendant and the other members of the
I.M.C. about the conduct of the plaintiff would enjoy absolute privilege in so
far as they were made available at the hearing before the Ombudsman. Otherwise,
the actual communication itself produced at the material time at the I.M.C.
meeting would enjoy qualified not absolute privilege if made outside the
proceedings before the Ombudsman: see the case of Adapoe v. Pospisil [1974] 2
G.L.R. 327 relied on by the defendant’s counsel. It would seem to me therefore
that the answers to these legal issues will at this stage dispose of this case.
This is because the plaintiff’s action was purely founded on minutes or
material which he obtained from the proceedings before the Ombudsman. We have
found this enjoys absolute privilege and so cannot be tendered in evidence at
this trial. Thus the plaintiff can never go beyond stating the purely
introductory matters like the name, the address, e.t.c. given at any hearing to
testify: see Order 25. R. 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954
(L.N. 140) which provides:<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. If,
in the opinion of the Court or a Judge, the decision of such point of law
substantially disposes of the whole action or any distinct cause of action,
ground of defence, set off, counterclaim, or reply therein, the Court or Judge
may thereupon dismiss the action or make such other order therein as may be
just.”<o:p></o:p>I find
that the decisions on these points of law raised dispose absolutely of this
whole action and I therefore dismiss the action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>