HAYFORD vs. ANSAH AND OTHERS [1991]DLHC2026

Date	1991-07-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLHC2026

PIESARE J.

TSAHEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MISS AKUA ASABEA AYISI FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT.

NO REPRESENTATION BY OR FOR THE FIRST AND THIRD DEFENDANTS.

[1991]DLHC2026
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">HAYFORD<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ANSAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 1 GLR 274<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>TSAHEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>MISS AKUA ASABEA AYISI FOR THE SECOND 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">

NO REPRESENTATION BY OR FOR THE FIRST AND THIRD DEFENDANTS. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF PIESARE J.<o:p></o:p>On 31 July 1991 this court being fully satisfied upon the evidence
and upon the law that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the
defendants for defamation, entered judgment against them jointly and severally
for the sum of ¢2 million damages for defamation, plus ¢200,000 costs.<o:p></o:p>The following are the reasons for this judgment against the
defendants. The claim against the defendants jointly and severally was for the
sum of ¢2,700,000 for the defamatory words published against the plaintiff by
the defendants in the Ghanaian Voice issue No. 131 of 11 - 17 November 1985.<o:p></o:p>The original writ of summons and the original statement of claim
were filed the same day on 8 January 1986. After a series of amendments, the
statement of claim was finally amended by the plaintiff pursuant to an order of
the court dated 21 July 1989. The defendants did not react to the plaintiff’s
final amendment by filing any amended defence or defences.<o:p></o:p>Now Order 28, r. 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954
(L.N. 140A) provides that:<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">“5. Where any party has amended his pleading under Rule 2 or 3,
the opposite party shall plead to the amended pleading, or amend his pleading,
within the time he then has to plead or within eight days from the delivery of
the amendment whichever shall last expire; and in case the opposite party has
pleaded before the delivery of the amendment, and does not plead again or amend
within the time above mentioned, he shall be deemed to rely on his original
pleading in answer to such amendment.”<o:p></o:p>Where therefore the plaintiff, as in this suit, amends his
statement of claim pursuant to an order of the court, and the defendants do not
react to the amendment by amending their original defence or defences within
the requisite time, they are deemed to rely on their original statement of
defence or statements of defence.<o:p></o:p>In this suit the defendants did not react to the plaintiff’s
amendment of his statement of claim by amending their defence or defences. They
were therefore deemed to rely on their original defence or defences filed
respectively by the first and third defendants on 3 March 1986, and by the
second defendants on 2 December 1986.<o:p></o:p>The cause of action and the alleged defamatory words published
against the plaintiff were pleaded by the plaintiff. The offending Ghanaian
Voice issue No. 131 of 11-17 November 1985 was also tendered in evidence as
exhibit A. The alleged libellous article in exhibit A commences at the front
page and is headed “TROUBLE BREWS AT NATIONAL LOTTERIES.” The article opened 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">“Once again, the social evil of victimising vigilant and patriotic
workers has allegedly reared its ugly head, this time not in the far away east,
west or the north but within the city of Accra: precisely at the National Lotteries
Department.<o:p></o:p>Speaking to the Ghanaian Voice in our office last week a spokesman
of the 12 who claim to be victimised by the Department of Lotteries by the
current three-man interim management committee with Col. Hayford (rtd.) as its
chairman, has issued them with a transfer letter under the pretext of
redeployment but meant to punish them.<o:p></o:p>In fact, a reply from the Secretary for Labour and Social Welfare,
Mr. Ato Austin with reference No. GD 002/3/SF2/N2 to two separate petitions
sent to him on the issue showed that the decision to transfer the 12</main>