MASAI DEVELOPERS & ORS vs. MULTIMEDIA BROADCASTING & ORS [2006]DLCA6235

Date	2006-01-16
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO H1/266/05
Citation No.	[2006]DLCA6235

MRS. ADINYIRA J.A (Presiding)

MR. DOTSE J.A

MRS. HEWARD-MILLS J.A

TONY LITHUR FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

CHARLES ZWENNES FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS.

[2006]DLCA6235
																																						<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" >MASAI
DEVELOPERS &amp; ORS <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MULTIMEDIA
BROADCASTING &amp; ORS <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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">CIVIL
APPEAL NO H1/266/05&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: 16TH
JANUARY, 2006<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CHARLES ZWENNES FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MRS. ADINYIRA J.A
(Presiding), MR. DOTSE J.A, MRS. HEWARD-MILLS J.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>HEWARD-MILLS
J. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal by the Defendant/Appellants (hereinafter called the defendants)
against 6 rulings made by the trial judge during the cross examination of the
second plaintiff who together with others has instituted an action for
defamation against the defendant/appellants. <o:p></o:p>The
defamatory words were set out in schedule A, schedule B and in paragraph 19 of
the statement of claim. The statements were said to have been made during
broadcast on various dates and also published on a website belonging to the
first defendant. The statements were produced in court on tapes together with
transcripts provided by the plaintiffs. <o:p></o:p>This
appeal, being interlocutory, it is obligatory on the court to deal with the
substantive issues yet at the same time avoid any pronouncements that might
unnecessarily prejudice the remaining trial, to this end this judgment will
merely seek to highlight only the areas of the proceedings which are essential
to the final verdict herein. <o:p></o:p>Preceding
the first ruling, defence council had sought to establish the status of an
individual who the witness had admitted giving a car to. To this, counsel for
the plaintiff raised an objection because according to him he did not know
where the question was going to, if the cross examination was towards
establishing that the second plaintiff had “some reputation” then the cross
examination had to be stopped. After heated arguments in the courtroom. There
were further objections because it was alleged that defence counsel was seeking
to cross examine on a meaning attributed to a statement made which meaning had
been denied in the statement of defence. <o:p></o:p>To
these objections the court ruled, that the defence had denied a meaning
attributed to the defamatory statement in schedule B by the plaintiffs and yet
was seeking to cross examine on that meaning. The judge considered this as
contradictory and warned that “any attempt to use this line of cross
examination will not be allowed”. <o:p></o:p>The
second objection arose after the following question was put to the witness,
“Now the case of my client I should say is that these two vehicles were given a
gifts by your company upon your instruction to these two ladies for the
purposes of promoting your business”. <o:p></o:p>The
essence of the objection was that that piece of evidence was already in to test
the credibility of the witness, “it should therefore not be smuggled in as a
basis for making an analogy”. <o:p></o:p>The
court ruled that the cross examination had been in relation to one lady, it is
not proper to add the issue of receipt of another car by another person being
either the former president or the first lady. Counsel for the defendant was
therefore ordered and I quote “to conclude that line of cross examination”. <o:p></o:p>The
question posed leading to the 3rd objection and ruling was <o:p></o:p>“What
will you say to the suggestion of the Defendants that the ….waste project was
helped a long by gifts that you gave to certain persons?” <o:p></o:p>Counsel
for plaintiff objected, insisting that nowhere either in schedule B or in
defendants response to schedule B was the showering of gifts stated as the
modus operandi of the 2nd defendant, and nothing had been pleaded about gifts,
he also objected because there was an imputation of crime which had not been
pleaded. <o:p></o:p>