DANIEL LASSI vs. FRANCES TORSU & 2 ORS [2013]DLCA6706

Date	2013-01-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HI/78/2011
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA6706

ASARE-KORANG JA

OFOE JA

HONYENUGA JA

MR. KWABENA NYANOR FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS

MR. CHARLES K. IMBEAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2013]DLCA6706
																																						<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" >DANIEL LASSI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FRANCES TORSU &amp; 2
ORS<o:p></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">

SUIT NO. HI/78/2011&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: 24TH JANUARY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

MR.
CHARLES K. IMBEAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE, J.A <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff sued the defendants in the High Court claiming<o:p></o:p>“1. An order for payment of ¢40m being
loss of income as allowances as a weekly lotto writer from September 2004 to
March. <o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;
Payment of ¢16m being loss of income as French teacher of Valley
Preparatory School at Adamorabe near Aburi-Akwapim from September 2004 to March
2006. <o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;
Payment of ¢10m being income lost as part time French teacher as home
teacher in 3 homes in Medina/Adenta from September 2004 to March 2006. <o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;
Interest on the total amount of ¢66m at the current Bank rate from 1st
September 2004 to date of judgment. <o:p></o:p>5.&nbsp;
General Damages for wrongful and malicious arrest and detention”. <o:p></o:p>He
contended before the trial High Court that it was the defendants who
masterminded his arrest, incarceration and eventual prosecution before the
District Magistrate Court where he was after trial acquitted and discharged.
This criminal prosecution caused him certain financial losses and damages,
hence his claim before the trial High Court as quoted above. At the end of
trial his claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 were dismissed for failing to provide evidential
support. He was however awarded GHC5000 general damages for his 5th claim with
cost of GHC3000.The trial judge was really very terse in his treatment of the
plaintiff’s claim as will be found quoted hereunder. All he said was that: <o:p></o:p>“There was evidence that the plaintiff
was detained wrongfully at the Kotobabi Police Station for three days then
later remanded for one week in James Fort Prison”. <o:p></o:p>There
was no evidence that he was staking VAG West Lotto. The evidence was that he
was staking Department of National Lotteries weekly lotto as well as Last
Chance Lotto. This is a far cry for the reason, for which he was arrested, to
wit, for staking VAG West Lotto. In Adejumo vs Abejunde (1965) GLR499 at page
511, it is said “ In an action for false imprisonment, the plaintiff does not
need to prove that the imprisonment was unlawful but established a prima facie
case that he was imprisoned by the defendant. The onus then shifts on the
defendant to prove justification for the imprisonment. Apaloo JSC at page 511
said: <o:p></o:p>“Although plaintiff was technically
imprisoned by the police, it seems plain that both defendants made a charge on
which it became the clear duty of the police to act. They did more than give
bona fide information to the police and cannot therefore shield themselves
behind the police”. <o:p></o:p>After
this quote the trial judge continued: <o:p></o:p>“I therefore find and hold that
plaintiff’s arrest, prosecution and detention was unlawful. The defendants
could not justify.” <o:p></o:p>It
is not surprising that the defendants are aggrieved at the judgment and the
award made by the trial judge and have therefore appealed on grounds they
formulated as follows: <o:p></o:p>1.
That the trial judge failed to give proper consideration to the case of the
defendants/appellants and wrongly held that there was no evidence that the
plaintiff/ respondent was staking Vag West Lotto <o:p></o:p>2.
The trial judge erred in holding the defendants/ applicants liable for the
arrest, detention and prosecution of the plaintiff/ respondent by the police
when the defendants/appellants played no role in setting the machinery of the
law in motion against the plaintiff/ respondent after merely lodging an honest
and genuine complaint with the police. 3. The judgment is against the weight of
evidence <o:p></o:p>4.
The trial judge erred in awarding damages to the plaintiff/respondent for
malicious prosecution when the reliefs sought by him did not include malicious
prosecution”. <o:p></o:p>An
appeal, as is common legal knowledge, is by way of hearing and this casts a
duty on an appellate court to review the whole of the evidence on record
whether the trial judge has in anyway faltered as to give cause to upholding
the appeal lodged by an appellant.&nbsp; The
powers of the appellate court in reviewing the whole evidence and when those
powers would be exercised in interfering with the trial court’s findings have
been expounded in several authorities.&nbsp;
In the recent Supreme Court case of Gregory vrs. Tandoh IV &amp;Hanson
(2010) SCGLR 971 at 985 even though His Lordship Jones Dotse was concerned with
concurrent findings made by an appellate court and how the</main>