ADZOVIE VRS. ADDO (A5/05/2023) [2024] GHADC 559 (20 December 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT VAKPO HELD ON THE 20TH OF DECEMBER, 2024, BEFORE HER WORSHIP COMFORT ASAMOAH SARPONG, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. SUIT NO. A5/05/2023 ELORM ADZOVIE --- PLAINTIFF VRS DEDE BEATRICE ADDO …... DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The plaintiff claims against the defendant Gh¢20,000.00 in damages for using slanderous and defamatory words against the plaintiff at a public place in the sight and hearing of other people at Vakpo Old Adomi in Ewe language and when translated into English would mean: ‘’You are a wizard’’,’’ you have planted juju on my way’’. ‘’You foolish man’’ ‘’You have bewitched the community members and they are seriously sick’’. [b]. Cost . The defendant pleaded not liable to the claim. Pleadings were not filed but witness statements were filed. THE CASE FOR THE PLAINTIFF The plaintiff testified and called two witnesses. According to the plaintiff he has a farm located near the VASEC Senior High School park and in June 2021 he caught the defendant stealing cassava from the farm. Upon questioning the defendant the defendant became offended and said the farm belonged to her mother. A misunderstanding ensued between them. Later the same day the defendant’s mother went to the plaintiff’s house to insult her. A week later the defendant and her mother went to the same farm to steal some cassava again and used motor cycle to convey same. The plaintiff stated that he reported the matter to their head of family. Then the defendant started causing destruction to the food crops in the farm until one day and without any provocation the defendant at the said place and time stated the defamatory and slanderous words against the plaintiff in the sight and hearing of Peace Adzaklu and others at Vakpo Old Adomi. That the said words were the following in Ewe: ‘’you are a wizard, you have planted juju on my way’’. ‘’you foolish man, you have bewitched the community members and they are seriously sick’’ ‘’you have succeeded your father who was a wizard in killing people at the Vakpo Old Community’’ ‘’as for me you cannot kill me’’. The plaintiff averred that he summoned the defendant before Togbe Awolo V at Vakpo Todzi but the defendant failed to appear before the chief but continued to defame him with the above defamatory words that the plaintiff’s son and uncle heard the said abusive words of the defendant in town. That the defendant has maliciously tarnished his hard earned reputation in town, wherefore the plaintiff seeks damages for defamation against the defendant. In cross –examination the plaintiff said he once drove away someone from the farm because the fellow was working on his [plaintiff] farm. Asked where the defendant said those words against the plaintiff the plaintiff answered that he once met the defendant on the farm trying to spray something on the farm. Then he questioned the defendant she started abusing bthe plaintiff. One Peace was there and so he told Peace that she would be his witness and the defendant said she was not afraid of anything. That the second time was when the defendant and her mother harvested and conveyed the cassava in a tricycle. That the defendant said he the plaintiff’s father was a murderer and he was also killing people. His wife was there and asked him not to respond to the insults. In further cross –examination the plaintiff said the defendant insulted him in his house and also in the farm. He denied cursing the defendant. The plaintiff rejected the defendant’s assertion that he told Peace to bear a false witness that the defendant had insulted him and stated that the defendant did insult him in those words. The plaintiff’s first witness is Peace Adzaklu. Her statement on truth is to the effect that she shares a common boundary on the land with the plaintiff. One day the plaintiff invited her over to his side of the land and upon reaching there she met the defendant standing in the plaintiff’s farm and heard the defendant insult the plaintiff as follows: ‘’you are a wizard. You cannot kill me’’. ‘’you have planted juju on my way but nothing happened to me’’. That the following day the defendant entered the witness’s farm but she warned her to go away as she shared a boundary with the plaintiff. Once again the defendant insulted the plaintiff that he was a wizard and the defendant asked her to inform the plaintiff that she said so. On the way home she met the plaintiff and informed him about what the defendant had said. They all went to the farm but upon reaching the farm the defendant left. In cross –examination the witness said she met the defendant in the plaintiff’s farm spraying some contents on the farm amidst saying ‘’you are a killer’’, ‘’you thought I would die’’, your father too was a killer’’, ‘’I will never die’’. She rejected the assertion that the plaintiff he would fabtricate a lie against the defendant and asked her to testify in his favour. That she met the defendant twice on the farm and the defendant repeated her insults against the plaintiff. P.W.2 is Ofori Joan, the plaintiff’s wife. She testified that the defendant and her mother one day in the evening were in their house to fight with the plaintiff over the cassava farm the plaintiff had cultivated near the VASEC School park. The defendant said the plaintiff is a thief and a wizard, and that she the defendant’s spirit was stronger than the plaintiff’s ad so the plaintiff’s juju could not work on her. The witness said the defendant claimed the farm belonged to one Wofa Antoo who had even died long ago. She then told the husband not to respond to the insults but to summon the defendant before elders. In cross-examination the witness maintained that the defendant insulted her husband when the defendant and her mother were in their house. That the defendant claimed the cassava farm belonged to Wofa Antoo but the husband said Wofa Antoo had died long before he cultivated the cassava farm. That when the plaintiff said the farm did not belong to the defendant the defendant insulted him that he was a thief and jujuman. That was when she told her husband not to engage the defendant in further exchange of words. In answering questions by the court the witness said the said Wofa Antoo died some eight years ago. That even though he was cultivating cassava on the land after his death no one else cultivated the land apart from the plaintiff. THE CASE FOR THE DEFENDANT The defendant per her witness stated testified that the plaintiff is a relation to her husband and the two share a common boundary on the land in dispute. That in June 2021 she sent a labourer to work on her land and the plaintiff sacked the labourer from the farm. She and her mother went to the plaintiff to enquire from him why he did that but the plaintiff angrily fought with them. The summoned the plaintiff before one Mr. Adzosi to help attempt settlement but there was no settlement because the plaintiff did not cooperate. Mr. Adzosi therefore gave her the go- ahead to cultivate the land. She went but found that the plaintiff had already planted cassava on a portion of the land in her possession. She removed all the planted cassava sticks and put them under a plantain tree in the plaintiff’s own portion of the land. She went to the farm some days later and met the plaintiff and Peace Adzaklu on their farm and questioned the plaintiff why he encroached on her farm to plant cassava on her portion. That the plaintiff told her that he would fabricate lies about her and get a false witness to testify against her in court. That then plaintiff told Peace Adzaklu to bear a false witness against the defendant, and the said witness agreed to do so. That the plaintiff also threatened that he would take the land from her at any cost. That the plaintiff started his fabrication that she had stolen his cassava but she ignored and disregarded the allegation and continued to work on her farm. The defendant denied ever insulting the plaintiff or issuing any defamatory words against the plaintiff. The defendant thus urged the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim with punitive cost falsely trying to throw dust into the eyes of the court. In cross-examination the defendant stated that the defendant denied that she had insulted the plaintiff that he is a thief and a jujuman. She denied that she saw Peace P.W.1 in the farm with the plaintiff, saying she never told the plaintiff she was not afraid whether or not he called Peace to bear witness for him. She said once Peace came to the land when she was on her portion weeding and Peace told her not to weed beyond a certain palm tree and she told Peace that she would weed to wherever her strength would take her and Peace would not be able to stop her. She rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that she told Peace that she was following Elorm the jujuman and that was why she was challenging her. She said she never said such words to Peace about the plaintiff, and that she knew the plaintiff to be a Christian and not a jujuman. She said she had never insulted the plaintiff and his father that they were jujumen, accusing the plaintiff of fabricating the story. The defendant did not call a witness. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE APPLICATION OF LAW At customary law slander is actionable without proof of special damages provided false. This is based on a policy which is inhospitable to certain utterances. In Afful V. Okyere [1997 -1998] 1 GLR 730 it was held defamatory for the defendant to call the plaintiff a ‘’witch’’ and also say that the defendant had killed his two children. According to Kofi Kumado in his Introduction to the Law of Torts in Ghana, page 240, the tort of defamation protects a person from false imputations which harm his reputation with others. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant used the alleged defamatory words against him in the presence of his witnesses on different occasions. The defendant denies ever insulting the plaintiff in those words. The plaintiff’s wife corroborates the evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant and her mother were in the plaintiff’s house to quarrel and the defendant uttered the alleged insulting words. The defendant does not dispute that she and her mother went to the plaintiff’s house over some cassava. She however denies insulting the plaintiff in the words complained of. Yet she did not call her mother as a witness who I believe could be a vital witness for the defendant. Simply denying every question by saying ‘’I don’t remember ‘’, or ‘’it is not true’’, without more does not make the statement or answer probable. See the case of Majolagbe V Larbi [1959] GLR 190 where it was stated that a party does not prove his case by just mounting the witness box and repeating the averments on oath without adducing some corroborative evidence. The defendant’s answers clearly needed to be clarified with further answers or explanations. This leaves me in doubt as to the credibility of the defendant’s testimony as to whether the defendant has been truthful with the court. The Evidence Act, 1975 [NRCD 323] section 80[2] provides some criteria for determining credibility, among which is substance of the testimony and the existence or non-existence of any fact testified by the witness. The defendant never stated in her evidence- in- chief that she and her mother went to the plaintiff’s house to have exchange of words with him in the presence of his wife. Again she denied in cross –examination that she saw Peace [P.W.1] in the farm with the plaintiff when she had stated in her witness statement that the plaintiff and P.W.1 who she alleged is the girlfriend of the plaintiff were in the farm one day. These pieces of evidence cast doubt on the veracity of the defendant’s testimony. In a civil case a party proves their case on the balance of probabilities as was stated in the case of Serwah V. Kesse [1960] G.L.R. 227 @ 228. The Evidence Act provides at section 12 that the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities which is explained to mean that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence. Upon analysing the evidence it is my opinion that the defendant did utter those defamatory words against the plaintiff. In our communities our belief in evil powers and juju make people fearful of people alleged to possess such powers and they therefore shun their company. It is on this basis that I award damages in favour of the plaintiff. I award Gh¢5,000.00 in damages for the plaintiff for the defamatory words the defendant uttered against him in the presence of other persons. Cost of Gh¢1,000.00 against the defendant. ……….………SGD……………… H/W COMFORT ASAMOAH SARPONG (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE)