DR. SOLOMON SARFOH (PLAINTIFF) vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DEFENDANTS) [1999]DLHC7396

DR. SOLOMON SARFOH (PLAINTIFF) vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POL... [1999]DLHC7396

Date	1999-12-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C. 412/94
Citation No.	[1999]DLHC7396

HIS LORDSHIP B. T. ARYEETEY J. A.

MR. JAMES AHENKORAH FOR PLAINTIFF.

MRS. ASIE ALLOTEY FOR DEFENDANTS.

[1999]DLHC7396
																																						<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" >DR. SOLOMON SARFOH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT
NO. C. 412/94&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 2ND DECEMBER, 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>MR.
JAMES AHENKORAH FOR 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">

MRS. ASIE ALLOTEY FOR DEFENDANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

HIS LORDSHIP B. T. ARYEETEY, J. A.,
SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE<o:p></o:p>

</div>By
the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 26th November, 1998, reliefs 6 and 7
of the amended Writ of Summons were remitted for trial by this Court on the
merits. Reliefs 6 and 7 of the amended Writ of Summons read as follows: <o:p></o:p>"6.
Another declaration that the Defendants have by their acts caused Plaintiff
economic and emotional loss and embarassment. <o:p></o:p>7.
General Damages for loss of earnings due to the Defendants acts resulting in
economic and emotional loss and embarassment to the Plaintiff". <o:p></o:p>In
pursuit of his claim as contained in the two reliefs listed above the Plaintiff
led evidence to the effect that following his arrest and detention by the
police for no crime committed by him, he was disabled from travelling to
Germany to conduct his business since the bail granted him upon his release
from custody had not been rescinded. As a result of his inability to return to
Germany, he has been put to emotional and economic embarassment as well as loss
of earning. The Plaintiff in his evidence specified his loss of earning as
follows: <o:p></o:p>1.
DM11,000 a month for his Afro Beauty Shop business. <o:p></o:p>2.
Annual profit of DM200,000 in that business. <o:p></o:p>3.
Loss of DM13,000 per month for his computer consultancy business in Germany. <o:p></o:p>4.
Loss of prospective business in mining, exportation of rice, sugar, flour and
wheat from Germany. <o:p></o:p>5.
Damage to Plaintiff's reputation as respected businessman in Germany. <o:p></o:p>6.
Break down in Plaintiff's marriage with his German wife. <o:p></o:p>7.
Loss of affection and respect from children as a result of his arrest,
detention and investigation made by the police. <o:p></o:p>According
to the Plaintiff's evidence on oath, he lived in Germany from 1972 to 1992
where he had been working mostly in the computer business. In his work as
consultant and seller of computers, he earned DM13,000 per month. He tendered
in evidence photographs of himself and another person in an office with what
looks like two computers and their monitors. The pictures are Exhibits B, B1,
B2, B3 and B4. He also testified that he, his wife and daughter ran two shops,
Afro Beauty Shop and Mini City Annex which dealt with African food. He tendered
in evidence, a business card which did not bear his name, Exhibit A. He
attributed his loss of resident permit in Germany to his long stay in Ghana. He
tendered in evidence the divorce petition from his wife, Exhibit C and the
result of a search conducted at the High Court Registry, Exhibit D. Taking
Exhibits C and D together we are left in no doubt that he did not contest the
petition for divorce which was granted by the Court. Also according to the
Plaintiff, his two children who loved him dearly have now turned against him
and they have refused to write to him in response to his own letters to them.
He has lost his personal property amounting to two billion cedis and his
intention to do mining business as well as carry on business as exporter of
rice, wheat, flour and sugar to Ghana, has been frustrated as a result of the
police action which also affected his reputation within the business community
in Germany. <o:p></o:p>In
her written submission, Counsel for the Defendants stressed the role of the
police in carrying out investigation into allegations of criminal conduct which
necessitated the arrest and detention of the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff had
co-operated with the Police in their investigation, he would have been released
on the very day of his arrest. He refused to make his statement to the police
in the absence of his lawyer. As referred to in the judgment of Lamptey, J. A.,
this Court gave judgment "in respect of the declaratory relief contained
in the sixth leg of the claim". It means that the penultimate sentence of
his judgment should be in reference to relief 7 only. According to that
sentence: "I would remit reliefs under the heads 6 and 7 of the Amended
Writ of Summons to the trial Court for hearing o</main>