QUANSAH vs. OFOSU [1989]DLHC2291

Date	1989-04-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC2291

LARTEY J

CHARLES AGBANU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1989]DLHC2291
																																						<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" >QUANSAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OFOSU<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 151<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: 18 APRIL 1989<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CHARLES
AGBANU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

NO
APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF LARTEY J.<o:p></o:p>By his
motion the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant do deliver to the
plaintiff written particulars of matters in the statement of defence in respect
of paragraphs 10-12, 14, 24 and 25. The motion was purported to have been
brought under Order 19, rr 6-8 and 23 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
1954 (LN 140A).<o:p></o:p>By his
indorsement on the writ of summons, the plaintiff’s claim is:<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">“for ¢10
million damages for (a) libel contained in the draft of a press statement made
and published by the defendant . . . and (b) wrongful interference with and intermeddling
in the plaintiff’s right to work and follow his calling as a research scientist
and crop development expert.”<o:p></o:p>In his
statement of claim, the plaintiff under paragraph 11 set out in full the draft
he relied upon as having been falsely and maliciously written and published of
the plaintiff by the defendant. In the opening paragraph of the draft it had
been alleged that there had been frequent interference from the plaintiff
calculated to divide the workers and bring down productivity. It went on to
state certain alleged acts of the plaintiff which, according to the draft, were
reasons why the plaintiff’s “machinations” should be discouraged. It ends with
a list of acts by the defendant and which were said to have brought marked
improvement to the whole establishment.<o:p></o:p>In his
statement of defence, the defendant did not seek to deny the publication of the
draft but said he edited it to ensure that only the truth was presented to the
public. According to him, the press release prepared by the committee for the
defence of the revolution of the board was an official act and that the
contents were true. In effect, the defence amounts to a plea of justification.<o:p></o:p>It is
trite law that particulars of any matter stated in any pleading may be ordered
by a court. The object or purpose of an application for particulars is to
enable the applicant to know or have a foretaste of the case he anticipates to
meet at the trial; that protects the parties from being taken by surprise: see
Ejura v Liman [1966] GLR 683 and Spedding v Fitzpatrick (1888) 38 Ch D 410, CA.
Furthermore, obtaining particulars from an opponent limits the issue; an
opponent is bound by his particulars and will not be allowed at the trial to go
into any matters not fairly included therein. In the words of Watkin Williams J
in Thompson v Birkley (1882) 47 LT 700, DC, particulars prevent surprise at the
trial, and limit inquiry at the trial to matters set out in the particulars.
They tend to narrow issues, and ought to be encouraged.<o:p></o:p>In an
action for libel where an imputation against the plaintiff is in general form
and where, as in the instant case, there is a plea of justification by the
defendant that the words are substantially true, the courts will not hesitate
to order particulars. And the particulars delivered must go to justify the
charges made in the libel, and not some other collateral imputation.<o:p></o:p>Turning
now to the application before me, the defendant states in general terms under
paragraphs 10-12, 14 and 25,of his statement of defence that the words
complained of contain the truth, although he failed to give instances of the
facts or story the plaintiff should expect to face at the trial. Again in
paragraphs 24 and 25 of the statement of defence, it was the defendant’s
assertion that the plaintiff by various methods and unjustifiable interference
has impeded the smooth administration of the board. All these are again stated
in general terms with no clue as to the nature of the methods used by the
plaintiff which made proper administration of the board impossible. Nor is
there any given instance which demonstrates the plaintiff’s continued
interference in the administration of the board since the termination of his
appointment. I think the defendant must give particulars of the facts he relies
on to assert what he claims to constitute the truth contained in the press
release, and, accordingly, I order that he should deliver these particulars to
the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>I would
like to conclude this short ruling by referring to what the textbooks have
always sought to say about the plea of justification in libel. It is a very
dangerous plea and should never be resorted to without carefully considering
the sufficiency of the evidence by which the plea is to be supported.
Invariably particulars will in the main be ordered and at the trial itse</main>