KARIM V NUHU (BR/KD/DC/A5/362025) [2025] GHADC 216 (28 March 2025)

INTHE DISTRICTCOURTHELDATKWAME DANSOONFRIDAYTHE 28TH OF MARCH2025.BEFORE HERWORSHIPCYNTHIAADEIANDYESQ. (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) SUITNO.: BR/KD/DC/A5/362025 ABDULAIKARIM PLAINTIFF VRS. RAHINATUNUHU DEFENDANT J U DGME NT This is a defamation case. The plaintiff is claiming general damages against the defendant for defaming him to wit: “Mpinata, Kronfoo, W’awia me nua aponkyi na wasen aku me nua no akaho.” Which words when translated into English language means “you have no biological father, you are thief, you have stolen my brother’s goat and killed him” which words has tarnished the plaintiff’s hard won reputation as 1 a chief of Kontokonkori tribe and as a married man and has put the plaintiff into a public ridicule. The Plaintiff's case per his statement of claim is that he is the Chief of the Kontonkori community in Kwame Danso. Plaintiff said his property shares boundaries with that of the defendant’s family. There is a path in between the two properties which also serves as a gutter where drainage water passes whenever it rains. According to the plaintiff, the defendant used cement blocks to block the path, as a result, any time it rains, the water is diverted into his house. That this has been happening for some time now. That any attempt to unblock the pathto avoid rain water from entering his house comes with insults and name calling from the defendant. Plaintiff said about six months prior to the filling of his case on 17th October, 2024, he removed part of the blocks the defendant had packed to block the rain water from passing and defendant became offended and started raining insults to wit: “you have no biological father, you are a thief, you stole my brother’s goatand also killed him”. Finally,the plaintiff said, severalattemptsatgetting the defendant tostopthe name calling and insultshaveyielded no fruits thusthis suit claiming asper theendorsement onthe writ ofsummons. Plaintiff called FuseiniAbdulai ashis only witness(PW1). Sheis theplaintiff’swife. 2 PW1 said it rained some time ago and they saw that water had entered their house and was on the verge of entering their rooms. Plaintiff then went out in the rain to go and check what was happening. According to PW1, the plaintiff reported back to her that the defendant had blocked the water way with cement blocks as such the water course had diverted into their house. Plaintiff removed the blocks to allow the water to drain away. The following morning, PW1 said they heard the defendant raining insults on the person who removed the blocks. According to PW1, it was then that the plaintiff went out to tell her that he removed them to prevent his house from getting totally flooded. This explanation according to PW1 did not go down well with the defendant who then directed insults at the plaintiff to wit: “Bastard, you have no biological father, useless person, and thief. I am not like my senior brother when you stole his goats and later killed him”. Defendant denied uttering those words against the plaintiff. Defendant narrated how flooding has created problems between the two house-holds. In this particular incident, it was the plaintiff who first used cement blocks to block the water which resulted in her house being flooded after a rain. Defendant said as a result, she also used some cement blocks to block the water from entering her house which diverted water into plaintiff’s house. She woke up and saw that the blocks she had packed had been removed so she started asking who might have removed them. She said, she asked “who is that stupid person who removed the block, if I had seen that stupid person I would have given it 3 to him.” According to the defendant, the plaintiff upon hearing this emerged from his house and claimed responsibility. According to the defendant, she asked the plaintiff if he would have done the same thing to her if she were a male. That she did not utter thosewordsbeing attributed toherin the plaintiff's writ ofsummons. Defendant did not call a witness. Since this is a defamation case, the issues that falls for determinationareas follows: 1. Whetheror notthe wordsbeing complained ofbythe plaintiff wereuttered. 2. Whetheror notthe wordsweredefamatory. 3. Whetheror nottheywerepublished. 4. Whetheror nottheyweredirected atthe plaintiff. This is a civil action. Plaintiff must therefore prove his claim. He bears the burden of persuasion and also evidential burden. In order to discharge this burden on him, the evidence led must meet the standard of proof required in this civil case which is that it must be onthe balance oftheprobabilities. Defamation includes slander and libel. The essence of this civil liability is to provide a remedy with which a person can protect his reputation from attack. There are two legal regimes, when it comes to the protection of one's reputation in Ghana. Customary law and common law principles. Section 54 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) provides that 4 personal actions involving two Ghanaians must be governed by their personal law which is customary law. Defamation in customary law protects both reputation and injured feelings. At customary law slander is actionable per. No need to prove special damage. Iamgoing toresolveissues oneand twotogether. A defamatory statement may be defined as one which “tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally”. Sim v Stretch [1930] 2 All ER 1237 at 1240. This may be done by exposing the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt as held in the case Parmitter v Coupland [1840] 6 MW 105 at 108 or causing people to shun oravoid him ortodiscredit him inhis office, trade orprofession. In the case before us the plaintiff says the defendant called him a bastard, thief and a murderer. There is no doubt that these are words meant not only to lower the plaintiff's reputation as a chief before his subjects but also for people to shun his company. The words therefore have a defamatory meaning. Plaintiff said it was the defendant who uttered the words. Defendant denied it but PW1 who was present at the scene said he heard the defendant saying them. I find based on the evidence therefore that the defendant wasthe onewho said themand they aredefamatoryofthe plaintiff. On the next issue as to whether or not the words were published. This means the words were communicated by the defendant to, at least, one person other than the plaintiff 5 himself. According to the plaintiff, the words were said in the presence of people who were attracted to the scene as a result of the defendant's noise. PW1 said she was also present and heard it. Since therewere other personspresent apart fromthe plaintiff, this qualifies aspublicationassuch I find that thestatement waspublished. On the final issue as to whether or not the words were directed at the plaintiff, per the evidence above, when the defendant started questioning who might have removed the cement blocks, the plaintiff went to her to claim responsibility. It was after that that the defamatory statement was uttered obviously directed at the plaintiff. It is therefore my finding that the defamatorywords were directed at theplaintiff. Based on the above findings, the ingredients of the tort outlined above, have been proven as such the defendant may be said to be liable in the absence of any defense. Defendant did not lead evidence to justify those statements she made. In other words, she couldn’t provide proof of the truthfulness of the uttered statement which made themfalse. Defendant thereforedid nothaveadefence oftheslander. On the basis of the above findings therefore, plaintiff has been able to prove his case against the defendant as such defendant is liable for the tort of defamation against the plaintiff. Defendant is tocompensate the plaintiff withanamount ofGH₵4000.00. 6 II.CostofGH₵500.00 …………………………………… H/W CYNTHIAADEIANDYESQ. (DISTRICTMAGISTRATE) 7