Mensah v Damoah and Others (C13/62/2020) [2024] GHAHC 551 (3 December 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, COMMERCIAL DIVISION “B” (GENERAL JURISDICTION) HELD AT SUNYANI ON TUESDAY THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICEJOYCE BOAHEN, HIGH COURT JUDGE SUITNO. C13/62/2020 PETERMENSAH PLAINTIFF VS. 1. PAULDAMOAH 2.PRODUCE BUYINGCOMPANY (PBC)LIMITEDENCHI DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT Plaintiff present Defendants absent Daniel KorangappearswithDr.StephenAppiahfor the Plaintiff PLAINTIFF’S CASE The Plaintiff’s case is that he is a farmer and the 1st Defendant is the District Officer of the 2nd Defendant which is a Limited Liability Company engaged in the production and buying of raw cocoa beans in all the regions of Ghana including Bono Region and 1 Western North Regions of Ghana. According to the Plaintiff, one of his children called Augustine Mensah is a Cocoa Purchasing Clerk at Sewum in the Western North Region of Ghana, which job he has faithfully performed for the 2nd Defendant since 2009. One Prince BoakyeofEnchi, Sewum according to the Plaintiff, guaranteed the contract of the Plaintiff’s son with the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff contends that at the close of the 2019/2020 main crop season, the 1st and 2nd Defendants alleged that the Plaintiff had made losses in the course of his work. The 2nd Defendant acting through the 1st Defendant made a criminal complaint againstAugustine Mensah at Enchi Police Station and the Police launched asearch forAugustine Mensah. According to the Plaintiff, after a search for Augustine Mensah by the Police proved futile, the 1st Defendant, led by some unknown Police Officers from Odumase District Police Station on 3rd April, 2024 arrested him at midnight when he was asleep in his house at Badu Adamu. Upon his inquiry about the reason for his arrest, the arresting officer told him they are acting on a complaint lodged with the Police by the 2nd Defendant through the 1st Defendant. The Police further told him that they arrested him to ensure that his son avails himself to Enchi Police. When he told the Police that they could not arrest him for a contract he knows nothing about, the Police got infuriated and whisked him away in a waiting taxi. Upon his arrest at midnight, he was detained overnight in Enchi Police station. On 4th April, 2020 he was picked up in the 1st Defendant’s personal car in the company of a Police officer calledAmankwa and he was 2 further detained overnight in Enchi Police station. While he was in the Police cell, the Police collected One Thousand Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (Ghs 1,200.00) from his wife and his family as the cost involved in his arrest and he remained handcuffed throughouthis arrest. The Police arraigned him before the Enchi District Court on a charge of failing to assist the Police to arrest his son. The processes were not served on him but he all the same pleaded not guilty to the charge. He was granted bail but upon the instructions of the Defendants, the Police failed to release him from the cell until 8th April, 2020. It is the Plaintiff’s case that the charges based on which he was arraigned in the District Court Enchi is not known to the criminal law in Ghana. Subsequently, Augustine Mensah voluntarily appeared in Court on 14th April, 2020 and he is currently standing trial. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants were instrumental and actively involved in his arrest, detention and prosecution which was maliciously orchestrated by the Defendants. That his arrest, detention and prosecution had no legal basis and constitutes a flagrant and scandalous violation of his human right because he did not commit any crime under the criminal law nor violated the civil law of Ghana. The Plaintiff contends that he is therefore entitled to punitive and exemplary damages for the violation of his fundamental human rights. The Plaintiff’s case is that his criminal prosecution at the instance of the Defendants was malicious and defamed him and his hard - won 3 reputation as opinion leader, abusuapanin of his family, a respected farmer and a responsible father and husband. He suffered nervous shock, severe emotional distress and trauma daunting anxiety and psychological anguish. The Plaintiff claims specific and general damages against the Defendants for his malicious prosecution which terminated inhis favour. PLAINTIFF’S RELIEFS The Plaintiff’sreliefs arefor; 1. A declaration that the arrest, handcuffing, detention of the Plaintiff at Odumase and Enchi Police cells on 3rd, 4th and 7th and subsequent prosecution of the Plaintiff by the Defendants at Enchi District Court was malicious, improper, unreasonable, unconstitutional and therefore violated the fundamental human rightsofthe Plaintiff. 2. General and specific damages of Four Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand Ghana Cedis (Ghs 498,000.00)for malicious prosecution. 4 The Plaintiff did not file a reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence. In his evidence-in-chief, the Plaintiff repeated his averments in the statement of claim and tendered a ruling of the District Court Enchi which was marked as exhibit “A” to support his case. DEFENDANT’SSTATEMENTOF DEFENCE In their statement of defence the Defendants stated that the Plaintiff is resident of Bonfano in the Western North Region. The Defendants admitted that Augustine Mensah is a Cocoa Purchasing Clerk at Sewum in the Western North Region who entered into a contract with the 2nd Defendant guaranteed by one Prince Boakye of Enchi Sewum. They further admitted that at the close of the 2019/2020 main crop season they alleged that Augustine Mensah had made losses. They denied the Plaintiff’s allegation that he was arrested at their instance and that Prince Boakye the Plaintiff’s guarantor led the Police toAdamu to arrest the Plaintiff who had gone into hiding. The Defendant denied their involvement in the Plaintiff’s arrest and stated that based on the admonition of the Magistrate, the Plaintiff caused his son to attend court. That it was the decision of Ghana Police Service, Enchi to initiate criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant’s representative came to Court after the Plaintiff’s evidence-in-chief was closed and intimated to the Court that his lawyer said he had written to the Court. 5 The Court did not find any such letter on the docket. The matter was adjourned in the presence of the 1st Defendant for his lawyer to appear at the next sitting to cross- examine the Plaintiff. Counsel for Defendants cross-examined the Plaintiff and the matter was adjourned. After that, there were several adjournments and the substantive Judge was transferred until the current Judge took over. Proceedings were typed, in the absence of the Defendants and their lawyer who failed to attend Court despite hearing notices being served on them. Counsel for Defendants failed to appear to further cross – examine the Plaintiff so Counsel for Plaintiff prayed the Court to close the Plaintiff’s case. The Court accordingly closed the Plaintiff’s cross-examination to enable the Plaintiff to call PW1. However, the Plaintiff dispensed with calling PW1 and prayed the Court to close the Plaintiff’s case. The Court closed the Plaintiff’s case, and ordered the Plaintiff’s lawyer to file his written address and further ordered the Plaintiff to serve the Defendants with hearing notice. The Defendants were served but they did not appear to open their defence although they filed witness statements. The Court therefore adjourned the matterfor judgement. COUNSEL FORPLAINTIFF’SADDRESS Counsel relied on relevant authorities on the burden of proof and damages in his address and noted that the Plaintiff established his burden of proof that the 1st Defendant caused the arrest of the Plaintiff who also initiated the prosecution of the Plaintiff. That the prosecution was terminated in the Plaintiff’s favor after the 6 Magistrate found that the Plaintiff’s involvement per the facts was that he aided A1 to run away when A1 was being sought for by the Police. According to Counsel, the Magistrate discharged the Plaintiff after finding that the evidence did not sustain the charge against the Plaintiff. Counsel contends that the prosecution of the Plaintiff was undertaken without reasonable or probable cause and that the prosecution was motivated by malice which caused the Plaintiff to suffer damage. Counsel emphasized that the 1st Defendant led the team of Policemen to arrest the Plaintiff in his hometown Badu and detained the Plaintiff overnight at Odumase Police Station and the Plaintiff was taken to Enchi in the 1st Defendant’s private car. Counsel submitted that an action lies for the Plaintiff because the criminal proceedings terminated in his favor by the Plaintiff being dischargedby the Magistrateduring apreliminary hearing. Counsel contends that the Defendants did not act reasonably because the Plaintiff had no business dealings with the Defendants but his son. The charge of abetment against the Plaintiff presupposes that the Plaintiff aided his son to commit the offence of fraudulent breach of trust which turned out to be false. According to Counsel, the Defendants had no proper motive in causing the arrest and detention of the Plaintiff other than to disgrace, embarrass and torture the Plaintiff without justification. The Defendants therefore acted maliciously. This caused the Plaintiff to suffer damages as a result of his malicious prosecution by the Defendants and that; his arrest curtailed his freedom of movement, when he was handcuffed, his dignity and his right to use his 7 hands freely were infringed, he was physically manhandled which amounted to assault and battery of his person, he could not freely walk away because he was required to be present at his trial, his freedom of movement and association were infringed for the period he spent in the dock/witness box. Counsel contends that the Plaintiff may suffer economically by engaging the services of a lawyer to defend him at the trial and every aspect ofacriminal trialpresentsthe Plaintiff withsome lossordamage. Counsel submitted that the four elements of malicious prosecution were established that; the prosecution was initiated or confirmed by the Defendant, that the prosecution terminated in favor of the Plaintiff, that the prosecution was undertaken without reasonable and probable cause and therefore a suit for malicious prosecution should succeed in the Plaintiff’s favor.Counsel argued that the Plaintiff’shard -won reputation, fame and dignity as an opinion leader, abusuapanin of his family, a respected farmer, mentor, responsible husband/father/family man and that the thought of the Defendants’ malicious prosecution gave him occasional nervous shock, severe emotional distress and trauma, daunting anxiety and psychological anguish of being handcuffed throughout his arrest and that the Plaintiff suffered severe damage. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive and exemplary damages against the Defendants for causing his arrest, handcuffing and detaining him at Odumase and Enchi Police cells on 3rd, 4th and 7th April 2020 and his subsequent prosecution at Enchi District Court was 8 improper, unreasonable, unconstitutional and therefore violated the fundamental human rightsofthe Plaintiff. EVALUATIONOF THE FACTS, EVIDENCE ANDAPPLICATION OF THELAW The Defendants’lawyer upon being served with the writ of summons and statement of claim filed Notice of Conditional Appearance and later filed Motion on Notice for the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim to be set aside for want of jurisdiction because the Defendants are in Enchi and the issue happened in Enchi and that the parties and their witnesses live in Enchi. That the Plaintiff did not indorse the writ of summons with his residential address which breaches a mandatory provision ofthe law and that should the Defendants obtain judgment in the matter it would be difficult to enforce it against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff opposed the application and said that the Defendants know his house where they arrested him so the absence of his address on the writ is not an issue. The Plaintiff also stated that the Defendants arrested him in Badu in the Bono Region and held him in cells in Odumase and the 2nd Defendant has branches in Sunyaniso the Courthasjurisdiction to handle this matter. The Court differently constituted dismissed the application and stated that the Defendants did not advance very good circumstances warranting the Court to set the writ aside. The Defendants did not appeal against the Court’s ruling. The Plaintiff filed Motion on Notice for Judgment in Default of Defence against the Defendants but the 9 Defendants filed statement of defence and the Court struck out the motion. The Defendants without appealing against the Court’s ruling participated inApplication for Directions but not Case Management Conference (CMC). They however filed their witness statements, participated in the proceedings, cross-examined the Plaintiff and stopped attending Court after that, although they were served with several hearing notices. The Court had no option than to proceed without the Defendants because although they were given opportunity to be heard they spurned it. The case of Watalah vs Primewood Products Limited; Adams and Tandoh [1973] 2 Ghana Law Report (GLR) 126-136CA refers. Inthe case of T.K.Serbeh CompanyLimited vsMensah [2005-2006] Supreme Courtof Ghana LawReport (SCGLR) 341at360the Court statedthat; “For, however credible a witness may be, his bare affirmation on oath or repetition of averments in the witness box cannot constitute proof. This is trite law: see Magolagbe vs Larbi [1959] GLR 190, especially at page 192. This proposition is applicable to matters even whose proof does not requirecorroboration as a matter of law.” The Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition by Bryan. A Garner Editor in chief at page 1102defines malicious prosecutionas; “A judicial proceeding, instituted by one person against another from wrongful and improper motives, and without probable cause to sustain it. It is usually called a malicious prosecution; 10 and an action for damages for being subjected to such a suit is called an action for malicious prosecution. In strictness, the prosecution might be malicious, that is, bought from unlawful motives, although founded on good cause. But it is well established that unless want of probable cause and malice concur no damages are recoverable. However, blameworthy was the prosecutor’s motives, he cannot be cast in damages if there was probable cause for the complaint he made. Hence, the term usually imports a causeless as well as ill-intended prosecution. It commonly,butnotnecessarily,means aprosecution on some charge of crime.” In the case of Mansour vs El Nasr Export and Import Company [1963] 2 Ghana Law Report(GLR) 316the Courtheld that; (1) “An action for malicious arrest is maintainable against any person who, without just cause, falsely or fraudulently and maliciously causes the arrest and detention of another person by means of judicial process. In an action for malicious arrests as in an action for malicious prosecution, the want of probable cause is evidence of malice. The defendants were liable for the malicious arrest of the Plaintiff as he was arrested and detained under an absconding warrant obtained by them. On the evidence at the time the absconding warrant was issued the defendants had nocauseof action againstthe Plaintiff. (2) In assessing damages in a case such as this, the court should consider, in addition to the restraint of the Plaintiff’s liberty and the serious damage to his credit and reputation, the 11 question whether or not the defendants acted bona fide, although quite wrongly. In this case the defendantsdid notactbona fide. In an Online article dated 19th November, 2023 titled “Tort of malicious prosecution by MohammedDahamani byJudah Brown the authorstatesasfollows; (1) Malicious prosecution which is a tort that stands on its own and this tort is not, however actionable per se and damages must be proved. Indeed, if someone has been prosecuted without any cause or with malice, and he/she has been acquitted by the court of law, the right action to take against the prosecutor or the Plaintiff is tort of malicious prosecution. It is a tort to institute criminal proceedings against an innocent man, if they are instituted without reasonable and probable causeand frommotives of Malice. In sweet and Maxwell 6 ed, by Paula Giliker on tort that the tort of malicious prosecution has four requirements; i. the defendanthas prosecutedthe claimant, ii. maliciously,(i.e., with some wrongful or improper motive) iii. Withoutreasonable and probable cause, 12 iv. The prosecution ended in the claimant’s favour. (This may be acquittal, discontinuance by the prosecution, convictionquashed on appeal or on technical grounds). Inthe case ofKlah vs Phoenix, Insurance Co limited [2012] 2Supreme Court ofGhana LawReport(SCGLR) 1139at1142the SupremeCourtheld that; “There was a distinction between general and special damages: for whereas general damages would arise by inference of law and therefore unnecessary to be proved by evidence, special damages representing a loss which the law would not presume to be the consequences of the defendant’s act but would depend in part, on the special circumstances, must therefore be claimed on the pleadings particularized to show the nature and extent of damages claimed. The Plaintiff must go further to prove by evidence that the loss alleged had been incurred and that it was a directresultof the defendant’s conduct.” ISSUESSET DOWNFOR TRIAL On 23rd March, 2021, the Court differently constituted set down the following as issues fortrialin this matter; 1. Whether ornotthe Plaintiff isentitled tothe reliefs he seeks. 2. Whether ornotit wasthe Defendants who caused, instigated and directed thearrest, handcuffing and detention of Plaintiff at Odumase and Enchi Police cells on 3rd, 4th and 7thApril, 2020. 13 3. Whether or not the arrest, handcuffing, detention and subsequent prosecution of the Plaintiff at Enchi District Court was malicious, improper, unreasonable, unconstitutional and therefore violated the fundamental human rights of the Plaintiff. 4. Any other issues raised by the pleadings Before I proceed to tackle the issues, it is useful to state that Order 67 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I 47) provides for the enforcements of fundamental human rights under article 33 (1) of the 1992 Constitution. The Plaintiff’s suit is based on malicious prosecution but also wants the Court to establish whether or not the Defendant’s act ofmalicious prosecution violatedhis fundamentalhuman right. It is trite law that the first issue whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs he seeksis not anissue because that is why the Plaintiff is in Court. The 4th issue, any other issue(s) raised by the pleadings is also not an issue unless the Courthas further issues toraise. Iwill thereforediscuss only the 3rdand4th issuesstated above. The 3rdand 4thissuesare; 14 3. Whether or not it was the Defendants who caused, investigated and directed the arrest, handcuffingand detention of the Plaintiff atOdumase and EnchiPolice cellson 3rd,4thand 7th April, 2020and 4. Whether or not the arrest, handcuffing, and detention and subsequent prosecution of the Plaintiff at Enchi DistrictCourtwas malicious, improper,unreasonable, unconstitutional and thereforeviolated the fundamental human rights of the Plaintiff ISSUE(3) The Plaintiff’s case is that his son Augustine Mensah is a Cocoa Purchasing Clerk at Sewum in the Western North Region of Ghana. He has since 2004 worked with the 2nd Defendant per a contract with the 2nd Defendant guaranteed by one Prince Boakye. The Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendants alleged that his son made losses in the 2019/2020 main crop season. The 2nd Defendant acting through the 1st Defendant lodged a complaint with the Police. After searching for his son and not finding him, the 1st Defendant led by some officers from sewum and Odumase District Police Station, Sunyani arrested him on 3rd April, 2020 in his house at midnight at Badu Adamu when he was asleep. He was informed that he was arrested following a complaint by the 2nd Defendant throughthe 1stDefendant toensure that his sonavails himself. The Police got angry when he told them that they could not arrest him for a contract he knew nothing about. 15 They took him away in a waiting taxi. On 4th April, 2020 he was picked from the cell in the 1st Defendant’s personal car to Enchi Police cells. He was arraigned in the District Court, Enchi and he pleaded not guilty to the charge. He was admitted to bail but the Police refused to admit him to bail upon the Defendants’ instructions until 8th April, 2020. Augustine Mensah voluntarily appeared in Court on 14th April, 2020 to continue with the proceedings. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants were instrumental and were actively involved in his arrest, detention and prosecution which was maliciously orchestrated by the Defendants. Their action violated his human rights since he had not committed any crime neither had he broken any civil law.According to the Plaintiff his malicious prosecution by the Defendants entitles him to specific and general damages for defaming his hard - won reputation as opinion leader, abusuapanin, respected farmeramong others. The Plaintiff claims that he suffered nervous shock, severe emotional distress, trauma, anxiety etc. for his malicious prosecution by the Defendants wherefore he claims the reliefs indorsed on his writ of summons. He attached exhibit “A”, a certified true copy of the ruling of the District Court Enchi, Western North dated 30th June, 2020 in the case of the Republic vs Augustine Mensah and Peter Mensah. A1, his son was charged with Fraudulent Breach of Trust Contrary to Section 128 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29). A2, the Plaintiff was charged with Abetment of Crime, to wit; Fraudulent Breach of Trust Contrary to Section 20 (1) and 128 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 16 (Act 29). The facts are that the District Manager of Produce Buying Company, 1st Defendant, gave Five Hundred and Sixty Eight Thousand and Forty Five Cedis (Ghs 568, 045.00) to A1 who failed to account for Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifteen Ghana Cedis (Ghs 41,715.00) out of the money. Police investigations showed that Augustine Mensah used the money to buy three (3) separate cocoa farms at sewum. Upon the Plaintiff’s lawyer’s intervention, the Magistrate stated as follows in his ruling dated30th June, 2020; EXHIBIT“A” “I have carefully read the facts as presented by the prosecution against A1. I have read the witness statement of prosecution. Being mindful that for a criminal charge to be sustained the court should look at the actus reus and mens rea; before conclusion is drawn, I am with the view that it will be premature if A1 is discharged at this stage. In the case of A2, considering the fact that the case and the availability of witness statements so far filed, it is evident that he did not take part in this cocoa transaction until after Complainant decided to pursue A1 over the matter. A2’s only involvement as highlighted by the facts is that he aided A1 to run away when A1 was being sought for. In any case, if for nothing at all, this charge proffered against him is not appropriate. Sincethe evidencecannot sustainthe chargeagainst A2, Idischarge him.” The facts indicate that the 1st Defendant is the District Manager of PBC who lodged the complaint with the Police. The 1st Defendant admitted in the Defendants’ statement of 17 defence that he lodged thecomplaint withthe Police. The Defendants did notmount the witness box to give any contrary evidence. The Plaintiff did not call a witness to affirm his case but he attached exhibit “A” which confirms that the 1st Defendant lodged the complaint with the Police. I have no reason to doubt the Plaintiff’s assertion that the 1st Defendant accompanied the Police to arrest him at Badu and the next day the 1st Defendant and the Police took him to Enchi in the 1st Defendant’s personal car and subsequently arraigned him in the District Court, Enchi. He was handcuffed throughouthis arrest. Althoughthe Defendants denied responsibility for arresting the Plaintiff and mentioned the Plaintiff’s guarantor and the Police as responsible for the Plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution, from the evidence proffered by the Plaintiff and exhibit “A” and from the arguments of Counsel for Plaintiff in his written address in support of the Plaintiff’s claims supported by applicable authorities, I am convinced that the 1st Defendant upon the instructions of the 2nd Defendant caused the arrest, detention and prosecution of the Plaintiff for no just cause. I am further satisfied that the 1st Defendant initiated the proceedings by lodging a complaint against the Plaintiff which led to the Plaintiff’s arrest. That the prosecution of the Plaintiff was terminated in the Plaintiff’s favor by the ruling of the District Court Enchi presided over by the Magistrate Eric Baah – Boateng Esq. dated 30th June, 2020. The Court also found that the prosecution of the Plaintiff was undertaken without reasonable and probable cause because the Plaintiff did not have a 18 contract with the Defendants. He was not the one the Defendants gave the alleged money to. There is no law that says that if one is looking for a son and could not find him, one should arrest thefather instead. In the light of the foregoing, it is hereby established that it was the Defendants who caused, instigated and directed the arrest, handcuffing and detention of the Plaintiff at Odumase and EnchiPolicecells on 3rd,4thand 7thApril, 2020. ISSUE(4) The charge against the Plaintiff was not sustainable because he could not have aided and abetted Augustine Mensah after A1 had already collected the money from the Defendants and had allegedly bought three (3) cocoa farms with it. Granted that the Plaintiff spoke to his son on phone to run away when the Police mounted a search for him, that did not constitute a crime of abetment. From the evidence before me, the conduct of the 1st Defendant acting on behalf or on the instructions of the 2nd Defendant was motivated by malice since they had no reasonable cause to arrest the Plaintiff. They therefore violated the Plaintiff’s human dignity by arresting him at midnight when he was asleep in his house, handcuffing him throughout his arrest creating the impression that he is a criminal, detaining him in Badu and Enchi Police cells, causing him stress and anxiety, humiliating him, restricting his freedom of movement etc. as argued by his Counsel. 19 The Defendants did not act with proper motive because the evidence before me shows that they had no business dealings with the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff’s son. The Defendant’s knew the Plaintiff’s son’s guarantor who they should have pursued. Their motivewould havebeen genuine if they had lodged the complaint against the Plaintiff’s son alone. The Plaintiff did not establish his position as opinion leader, abusuapanin, a respected farmer,mentor,aresponsible father and family man. However,when it comes to violation of human dignity, torture and humiliation even if reputation is not proved no matter a person’s status in life before the malicious prosecution happened, the said status would have been lowered and tainted with criminality which cannot be easily erased. PLAINTIFF’S RELIEFS 1. In the circumstance, the Court holds the view and hereby declares that the arrest, handcuffing, detention and subsequent prosecution of the Plaintiff at Enchi District Court was malicious, improper, unreasonable, unconstitutional and therefore violated the fundamental human rights of the Plaintiff. 2. Generaldamages In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to his reliefs against the Defendants. The Plaintiff prayed for general and specific damages of Four 20 Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand Ghana Cedis (Ghs 498,000.00) in his writ which in the Court’s view is special damages. He did not plead, particularize nor prove how he arrived at this specific damages. However, his Counsel mentioned punitive and exemplary damages in his address which the Court would not uphold because that is not stated in the Plaintiff’s writ and Counsel’s written address is not part of the pleadings and evidence led by the Plaintiff. It is important to note that although the Plaintiff prayed for general damages and considering the nature of the offence, the damage should be reasonable. Upon taking the totality of the evidence into considerationand the case ofMansour vsNasr case cited supra; I hereby award general damages of One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Ghana Cedis (Ghs 170,000.00)in favourof the Plaintiff. 3. Cost I took into consideration the length of the trial; expenses reasonably incurred by the Plaintiff, cost awarded in favor of the Plaintiff during the proceedings, reasonable cost incurred by the Plaintiff in mounting this action, and the fact that the Plaintiff engaged Counselthroughout thetrial amongothers. In the circumstance, I hereby award cost of Thirty Thousand Ghana Cedis (Ghs 30,000.00) in favor of the Plaintiff. 21 (SGD) JUSTICEJOYCE BOAHEN HIGHCOURTJUDGE 3RDDECEMBER2024 22