ADAPOE vs. POSPISIL []DLSC2244

Date
Suit No.
Citation No.	[]DLSC2244

ABBAN J.

S. N. TAY FOR THE PLAINTIFF

J. K. AHENKORAH FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[]DLSC2244
																																						<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:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">ADAPOE <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:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">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:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">POSPISIL <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT]<o:p></o:p>&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;[1974] GLR 327<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">

DATE:.<o:p></o:p>

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

S. N. TAY
FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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 0in 0in">

ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff
in this action is seeking to recover from the defendant ¢10,000.00 as damages
for libel. The alleged libel is contained in a letter written by the defendant
and sent to the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ghana, Legon.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Both the
plaintiff and the defendant were, at the material time, employees of the
University of Ghana, and they were working in the Faculty of Agriculture. The
said faculty, through its Crop Science Department, had established an
agricultural research station at Kade. The plaintiff was posted to this station
as an assistant farm manager. He was to supervise the work of the labourers and
the junior members of staff employed at the research station. He was also
responsible for the running and maintenance of the electric generators,
vehicles and the canteen at the station.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In 1964,
the defendant, who is a Polish national and a lecturer in agriculture, was put
in charge of the research station as a senior research officer. Even though the
plaintiff was responsible for the general management of the research station,
the defendant was made responsible for the overall control of the station, and
the plaintiff was made responsible to the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture
through the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Dean
of the Faculty of Agriculture in or about November 1968, appointed an auditor
from Legon to investigate the affairs of the research station. The
investigation, among other things, covered canteen accounts, sale of the
produce of the research station and the building fund of a school erected at
the research station for the children of the workers. The auditor went to the
research station. He held an inquiry and took evidence from witnesses. He also
examined and inspected the necessary books kept at the research station. After the
investigation he sent his findings, in the form of a report, to the Dean. That
report will, hereinafter, be referred to as the auditor’s report.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
auditor’s report contained very serious adverse findings against the plaintiff.
The Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture therefore sent a copy of the said report
to the plaintiff for his comments and explanation, if any. The plaintiff, in
his evidence, said he sent to the Dean the written comments as contained in the
letter, exhibit A; and since he did not hear anything from the Dean thereafter,
he assumed that his written comments and explanation had been accepted by the
Dean. But to his great surprise, in December 1969, he saw on his desk a pink
document, exhibit B, dealing with matters which the plaintiff thought had been
closed. That document was signed by the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
alleged by the plaintiff that the document, exhibit B, contained defamatory
statements about him. Exhibit B was supposed to embody the defendant’s comments
on the written explanation which the plaintiff had earlier on sent to the Dean.
That is, exhibit B was a letter which the defendant wrote to the Dean and in
which the defendant made some comments on the written explanation which the
plaintiff had already offered to explain away the adverse findings which the
auditor’s report made against the plaintiff. It was further alleged by the
plaintiff that the defendant “widely” circulated copies of the said letter to
several persons, including, one Aveme. Aveme was a petrol seller at Kade, and
had nothing to do with the university or with the agricultural research
station. The plaintiff contend</main>