MANGOTEY vs. ASARE [1988]DLHC637

Date	1988-10-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLHC637

LUTTERODT J.

COL. (RTD) G. Y. TSAHEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

D. H. BUGYEI FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1988]DLHC637
																																						<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" >MANGOTEY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ASARE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 77<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:
31
OCTOBER 1988<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">

COL. (RTD) G. Y. TSAHEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

D. H. BUGYEI FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff claims against the defendant special and general damages for false
arrest and false imprisonment of the plaintiff at the Ministries Police
Station, Accra. The plaintiff’s evidence showed that: (i) not only did the
defendant lodge a complaint with the Ministries Police that the plaintiff had
defrauded him; but (ii)he actually accompanied the police to effect the arrest
and gave specific directions and instructions that the plaintiff be taken away
and locked up for he is a thief. The plaintiff not only described how he was
led away and locked up for a period of four hours but he gave detailed evidence
showing the complaint lodged was malicious, false to the knowledge of the
defendant and so the arrest was unlawful and without reasonable and probable
cause. Because the defendant, though served with a hearing notice, failed to
turn up at the trial, all these essential facts remained unchallenged. The
Supreme Court decision of Amadjei v. Opoku Ware [1963] 1 G.L.R. 150 lays the
authority for what constitutes malicious or unlawful arrest and explains the
circumstances under which a defendant goes beyond the role of a mere informer.
Similarly, Adejumo v. Abegunde [1965] G.L.R. 499 also a Supreme Court decision
also reiterated the point that an informer (a defendant) who goes beyond laying
a mere charge cannot be allowed to hide himself behind the police.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Damages<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff no doubt is entitled to both special and general damages. At page 377
para. 748 of Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (13th ed.) we read:<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">“Even
where there has been no physical injury, substantial damages may be awarded for
the injury to a man’s dignity or for discomfort or inconvenience. Where liberty
has been interfered with damages are given to vindicate the plaintiff’s rights
even though no pecuniary damage has been suffered . . . The time, place and
manner of the trespass and the conduct of the defendant may be taken into
account. . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But even
more importantly, the learned authors in outlining the principle upon which
general damages for false imprisonment are assessed wrote at the same page:
“[T]he judge is entitled to consider as aggravating the damages any evidence
that the defendant was persisting in the charge originally made in bringing
about the false imprisonment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As far as
special damages are concerned the plaintiff pleaded and proved a loss of
¢22,000 arising directly from the arrest and he would therefore be entitled to
receive from the defendant the sum of ¢22,000 as special damages. In assessing
general damages, I will take into consideration the whole of the defendant’s
conduct as brought out clearly by the plaintiff: the utter malice which
motivated his arrest of the plaintiff for he knew the transaction was between
two companies; he knew the plaintiff was not the managing director of the
company. He had gone to inquire about him and had been told of his absence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He also
knew the sugar was not a stolen property. He had been present and taken part in
the adverse claim made by another for the sugar; he knew about the result of
the litigation. I will also take into consideration the fact that the defendant
was not repentant even at the point of arrest, which took place at the offices
where a number of people had congregated to buy sugar and which office
incidentally is at a residential area and so caused many to come to the scene.
No doubt the plaintiff’s dignity has suffered greatly for in his case he claims
he has lost his chances of succeeding to the Dodowa throne.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In all of
these circumstances, I would award the plaintiff damages of ¢300,000. Costs of
¢50,000 are also awarded against the defendant.<o:p></o:p>

</main>