Asamoah v Sarfo (A5/04/2024) [2024] GHADC 781 (25 October 2024)

SITTINGINTHEDISTRICTCOURTATWENCHIINTHEBONOREGION ONFRIDAY THE25TH DAYOFOCTOBER,2024,BEFOREHISWORHSIP ISSAHABDUL-WAHAB (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) SUITNO.A5/04/2024 BETWEEN COMFORTASAMOAHOFWENCHI - - - PLAINTIFF VRS: RICHMONDSARFOOFWENCHI - - - DEFENDANT JUDGEMENT ThePlaintiffhereinfiledthisdefamationsuitonthe11thdayofDecember,2023seekingfromthe courtandagainstthedefendantthefollowingreliefs; (1) An order from the court to compel the defendant retract the defamatory words the defendant used against the plaintiff at a public gathering at Ntoase in Wenchi and to render an apology on all the three (3) radio stations and information centers in and Wenchi. (2) Anorderforgeneraldamagesfortheinconveniencecausedtheplaintiff. (3) Cost. 1 The defendant pleaded not liable to the claims of the plaintiff; after same were read and explainedtohimintwi. Thedefendantalsocounter-claimedagainsttheplaintiffforthefollowing; (a) An order for general damages against the plaintiff for the allegation made against him (defendant) that he (defendant) defamed the plaintiff at the said public gathering and which has tarnished the defendant’s image as the Assemblyman of the Ntoase Electoral area. (b) Anyfurtherorder(s)asthecourtmanydeemfittomake. Plaintiffalsodeniedliabilityofthedefendant’scounter-claim. This court after a careful review of the pleadings of the parties, set the following issues down fortrialofthemainclaimoftheplaintiffandthecounter-claimofthedefendant; (1) Whether or not the defendant used the words complained about by the plaintiff as capturedintheplaintiff’ssummaryofthesubjectmatteroftheclaim; (2) Whetherornotthesaidwordsaredefamatory. (3) Whether or not the said words used by the defendant were directed at the plaintiff herein; (4) Whetherornotthesaidwordscausedtheplaintiffanydamagetoherreputation; (5) Whetherornotthewordswerepublishedtoathirdpartyorusedatapublicplace;and (6) Whether or not the defendant also suffered any damage to his reputation as a result of theactiontakenagainstfrom(defendant)bytheplaintiffherein. 2 (7) Whetherornottheplaintiffisentitletothereliefssought. In her evidence in-chief the plaintiff told the court she is Comfort Asamoah, a business woman andaUnitCommitteeMemberresidinginWenchi. That on Tuesday the 12th of December,2023, at about 4pm the Electoral Commission mounted a platform at Ntoase in Wenchi to introduce the candidates contesting in the Unit Committee and Assemblyelectionswhichwastobeheldonthe19thofDecember,2023. Plaintiff said she arrived at the scene at a time when the defendant herein was answering questions from the electorates. That during the said question time, one man called Frimpong, asked the defendant, why he (defendant) is no longer working cordially with the Unit CommitteeMembers.Plaintiffsaidthedefendant,inansweringthequestiontoldtheaudienceto looktohis(defendant)left-sideandseetheplaintiff,MaameComfortAsamoah(plaintiff)whois the one sabotaging him (defendant) and influencing the Unit Committee not to work with him (defendant)again. Plaintiff said, someone, from the audience then asked defendant if he (defendant) had any evidence to prove what he (defendant) said. That the defendant in his response, added that plaintiff herein, had counieved with the Unit Committee Members and they took money from one Joe and allowed him to put a sawmill machine at a place that the machine should not be. That defendant again told the audience that she (plaintiff) took money from one other person to erect pillars at where a shoe maker called Bob plies his trade and that, he (defendant) did not allowthepersontoputthecontainerattheplace.Plaintiffcontendedthatthoughtheallegations 3 are false, they have defamed her and also injured her good image before the over 400 people who had gathered there and also caused her (plaintiff) some embarrassment. Plaintiff said all attempts to get the defendant to retract those words and render an apology, proved futile. She (plaintiff)thereforedecidedtoseekredressinthiscourt. In his testimony, the first witness for the plaintiff (P.W.1) told the court he is Alex Kojo Botwe and that he resides in Wenchi and is a business man. That he (P.W.1) operates a sawmill at Ntoase in Wenchi. Th at he (P.W.1) knows the plaintiff who is a Unit Committee Member and a former women’s organizer of the New Patriotic Party (NPP). That he (P.W.1) also knows the defendant,whoistheAssemblymanfortheNtoaseElectoralareainWenchi. That he (P.W.1) was once questioned by the Wenchi Assembly as to how he got the place he operates the sawmills, and he (P.W.1) explained that the land is for him (P.W.1) and produced thedocuments coveringthelandtotheAssembly.Thatafterinspectinghis documentstheythen advised him to obtain the necessary authorization form the authorities, including the Unit Committee and Assembly man before he (P.W.1) can site the sawmill at that location. That he wasalsoadvisednottooperatethemachineduringclasseshourssinceitwasclosetoaschoolin order not to disturb the classroom sessions. P.W.1 said he complied with the advise and so operates his machine only after school has closed. P.W.1 said he also requested for a meeting with the entire membership of the Unit Committee including the plaintiff herein and where upon he(P.W.1)handeda letterof notificationto theCommittee;andpleadedwiththemtosign sohecoulddeliversametotheschoolauthorities.Thatallthefive(5)membersoftheCommittee signedtheletterandheleft. 4 P.W.1 said he later learnt that the Assembly man for the area (defendant herein) said at a public forum that the Committee Members took bribe from him (P.W.1) to allow him (P.W.1) operate a sawmill. P.W.1 said he found that to be unfortunate as he did not offer any money to any CommitteeMember. Plaintiff’s second witness (P.W.2) was one Kodi Eudice. He (P.W.2) said he lives at Boadan in Wenchi. That he knows the parties. That he wanted to place a container for his business here in Wenchi.Sohe(P.W.2)wenttotheTownandCountryPlanningOfficetobegivenaplace. That where they showed him (P.W.2) was going to cost him so much to develop so he (P.W.2) decided to look somewhere else for a place. P.W.2 said he later found a place at Ntoase in Wenchi but there was a big gutter there so he decided to erect some pillars in the gutter. That whiles he (P.W.2) was erecting the pillars the defendant invited him (P.W.2) and said he (defendant) will help him get the place. That the defendant then asked him (P.W.2) how much money he (P.W.2) had spent and he told defendant he had spent a lot in erecting the pillars in thegutter. Thewitnesssaidthedefendantthentoldhim(P.W.2)hewastalkingaboutthemoneythepeople collected from him (P.W.2). P.W.2 said he mentioned the figure to the defendant and the defendant then said the total was GH₵250.00. That there defendant asked him (P.W.2) if the women’s organizer did not collect money from him (P.W.2) and he (P.W.2) told defendant the women’sorganizerdid notcollectanymoneyfromhim(P.W.2). 5 The third and final witness for the plaintiff (P.W.3) was Osei Owusu Laban. He also said he knows the parties. That the Electoral Commission in Wenchi organized a program for the candidates contesting the Assembly Elections and Unit Committee Elections in Wenchi. That after the defendant herein, who was one of the contestants made his presentation, the Electoral Commission told the electorates to ask questions. That someone asked the defendant why he no longer has a cordial relationship with the Unit Committee Members. That the defendant in answering the question said he (defendant) and Comfort Asamoah (plaintiff) who is on his (defendant) left side were free but now they are no longer free and due to that plaintiff pulled thecommitteememberstoher(plaintiff)side. P.W.3 said, defendant added that, it is the reason he (defendant) is not working with the committee as they are not free. The witness (P.W.3) said there the EC Officer asked defendant if he has any evidence to support what he said. That there defendant said one Joe wanted to site hissawmill,machinebesidetheRomanSchoolbuthe(defendant)didnotallowhim,butthatthe plaintiff and the Unit Committee Members went behind him (defendant) and collected money fromhimtositethesawmillatthelocation. P.W.3saidthedefendantagainsaidthathe(defendant)stoppedsomeonefromerectingpillarsat Ntoase,inagutterbutthattheUnitCommitteeMemberspermittedthepersontodoso. In his evidence in-chief, the defendant also told the court he is Richmond Sarfo. That he is a teacher and the Assemblyman for the Ntoase electoral area in Wenchi. That he (defendant) knows the plaintiff, who is a Unit Committee Member at Ntoase-Wenchi. Defendant said on the 12th day of December,2023 at about 4pm the Electoral Commission in Wenchi mounted a 6 platform to introduce the persons or candidates who were to seek election in the Assembly and Unit Committee elections scheduled for the 19th day of December,2023. Defendant said he was one of the candidates and the first to answer questions from the audience/electorates. That the first questioner asked why he (defendant) does not work with his (defendant) Unit Committee members again? Defendant said his answer was that he (defendant) was initially very free with the plaintiff but that he (defendant) and the plaintiff are no long free and therefore not working together. Defendant said because he is no longer in a good relationship with the plaintiff, plaintiff has taken the committee members to her (plaintiff) side. Defendant said he told the audience that therearesomepillarserectedatthebackofNanaAkwamu’shouseandthattheUnitCommittee members collected money from some people and allowed them to erect the pillars and which pillarsshouldnotbethere. Defendant said he again told the audience in his answer that the committee members took moneyfromoneJoeandallowedhimtosetup asawmillmachineataplacewherethemachine disturbs students when they are in class. Defendant said he has videos to show that he did not mentionthenameoftheplaintiffandwasreferringtotheUnitCommitteemembers.Thathehas videos to show that he did not mention the name of the plaintiff and so prayed the court to dismissthecaseoftheplaintiff. The defendant’s first witness (D.W.1) was one Joseph Frimpong who said he is a carpenter and lives in Wenchi. That he (D.W.1) knows the parties herein. The plaintiff is the past women’s organizer of the NPP and the defendant is the current Assemblyman for the Ntoase Electoral 7 Area in Wenchi. D.W.1 said on the 12th day of December,2023 the Electoral Commission mounted a platform, at the Ntoase for the candidates in the Unit Committee and Assemblyman Elections. That the defendant was one of the contestants present at the program and the first person called onto the platform for the audience to ask questions. D.W.1 said he was the first persontoaskthedefendantaquestion.Thewitness(D.W.1)saidheaskedthedefendant whyhe was working with the Unit Committee any more as he did at first. That the defendant in answeringthequestion askedtheaudience tolook totheir leftside,thatthewomanstanding (ie theplaintiff) is sabotaging him (defendant) and using theUnit Committee members against him (defendant). and that there are some pillars erected at Akwamu’s house, that the Committee memberstookmoneyfromsomepeopleandpermittedthemtoerectthepillarswhichshouldbe there (pillars). D.W.1 said the defendant again told the audience, that the Committee members again collected money from one Joe and allowed him to put his sawmill machine and which machine disturbs the student in the school nearby. D.W.1 said it is not true that the defendant toldtheplaintiffthatshetakesbribes. In his testimony, the second witness for the defendant (D.W.2) told the court he is Owusu SarpongEmmanuelandthathelivesinWenchiandworkswithAspakWaterCompany.Thathe knows the parties. That the plaintiff is the former women’s organizer of the N.P.P and the defendantisthecurrentAssemblymanforNtoaseinWenchi. D.W.2 said he was a member of the Unit Committee of Wenchi Ntoase. That at the time he was with the committee, plaintiff called them to her house for a discussion. That in her (plaintiff) house the plaintiff said one Joe wanted to put his sawmill machine behind the SVD School so 8 theyshouldgo andseetheman.Thatthecommitteemembers thensaidtheywill given theman a letter for him to put the machine at the place after 2 days. That after the discussion Joe gave them an envelope. When they opened the envelope it contained GH₵500.00 and they shared together with the plaintiff and plaintiff said she will give defendant his share. D.W.2 said he informed the defendant that the plaintiff will bring his (defendant) share of the money Mr. Joe gavethem.Thatbecausethedefendant is notin talkingterms withtheplaintiff,shedidnotgive defendantthemoney. The third and final witness for the defendant (D.W.3) was one Prince Kusi Frimpong who said heisateacherandlivesatAkrobi.Thatheknowstheparties.Thattheplaintiffisapastwomen’s organizer of the N.P.P and the defendant is the Assemblyman for the Ntoase Electoral Area. D.W.3saidonthe12thdayofDecember,2023theECmountedaplatformfortheNtoaseareaUnit Committee and Assembly election. That the defendant was one of the contestants and the first person they called on to the platform for the audience to ask questions. That one Joseph Frimpong asked the defendant why he no longer works together with the Unit Committee members. D.W.3saidthedefendantinansweringthequestionaskedtheaudiencetolooktohis(defendant) left hand side, that the woman (plaintiff) standing there is sabotaging the Unit Committee members not to work with him (defendant). The witness told the court that the defendant again said that the pillars erected at Nana Akwamu’s house, that the committee members collected moneyfromsomepeopleforthemtoerectthepillarsthereandwhichshouldnotbeso. 9 Thatthe defendant again said thatthe committee members also took money from one Joeto put a sawmill machine and which machine disturbs the student when they are in class. D.W.3 said after the defendant said that plaintiff raised her hand to be allowed to speak but she was not allowedtotalk. D.W.3 said he was one of the officials and they told the plaintiff that the defendant did not mentionher(plaintiff)name. In addressing the issues set down for trial from the plaintiff’s main claim and the counter-claim ofthedefendant herein,itisimportanttoobservethattheplaintiffcontendedthatthedefendant herein defamed her (plaintiff) at a public gathering organized by the Electoral Commission in Wenchi.Whenthedefendanttoldthecrowd thatshe(plaintiff)tookmoneyfromonemancalled Joeandanotherperson(notnamed)andallowedthemtoerecttheirsawmillmachineandpillars respectively at a places not designated for such activities. Thus the plaintiff considered defamatoryassamehascausedherenvenceembarrassment andhasridiculedher(plaintiff)asa respected member of the Ntoase Committee and a member of the Unit Committee of the same Ntoase Electoral Area. This contention by the plaintiff was corroborated by the 3rd defendant of the plaintiff, one Osei Owusu Laban who said he was present at the said program organized by the EC in the Ntoase electoral Area. The witness (D3( stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of his witnessstatementadoptedashistestimonyasfollows; Paragraph 9 “Defendant said one Joe wanted to install his sawmill machine beside the Roman schoolbuthedidnotallowhim”. 10 Theninparagraph10,thewitnessstatedthat. “Thedefendant continued thatlater theplaintiff and theUnit CommitteeMembers wentbehind him(defendant)andcollectedmoneyfromthesaidJoeand permittedhimto install his machine there”. These words in the view of this court impugned the integrity and reputation of the Unit Committeeof whichtheplaintiff isa member,ingeneral,andtheintegrityof theplaintiff herein inparticular. It must also be noted that the defendant herein without controverting or dislodging the fact as forcefully established by the plaintiff, that he (defendant) had unjustifiably defamed her by calling her a corrupt person, also in his own testimony confirmed that he indeed stated that the plaintiff and the Unit Committee Member took money from the said Joe and others unlawfully. This could be gleaned from the defendant’s own witness statement now his evidence in-chief andinthestatementsofhiswitnesses.Inparagraph6ofhisevidence,thedefendantsaid;“ThatI answered that at first I was very free with the plaintiff but the togetherness is no more, that is whyshe(plaintiff)hasconvincedthecommitteememberstotakeherside”. Theninparagraph7thedefendantsaidthat; “ That I answered again that if the audience can say the truth, there are some pillars erected at the back of Nana Akwamu’s house, that committee members have collected money from some peopletoerectpillarswhichthepillarsshouldnothavebeenerectedthere”. Theninparagraph8plaintiffstatedagainthat; 11 “ThatI answeredagainthattheCommitteeMembershavealsotakenmoneyfromJoetoput sawmillmachineataplacewhichthemachinedisturbsthestudentswhiletheyareinclass”. Veryobviously,theseassertions bythedefendant weredirectedattheplaintiffwhowasalso present at the gathering and in fact a candidate for the Unit Committee election. These derogatory remarks as complained about by the plaintiff were equally corroborated by the defendant’s own witnesses who also testified before this court. And contrary to the claim by the defendant that he never mentioned the name of the plaintiff when he made those defamatory comments, his (defendant) own witnesses Jospeh Frimpong (D.W.1) and Prince Kusi Frimpong (D.W.3) stated that before the defendant made those comments he (defendant) asked the audience to look to his (defendant) left-side, and see the woman standing there, apparently referringtotheplaintiffherein. Indeed quoting the defendants’ witnesses ie D.W.1 and D.W.3, from their statements, same is capturebelowasfollows; D.W.1,JosephFrimponginparagraph7said. “ That defendant answered, if the audience are looking at his (defendant) left hand side, the woman standing ( i e the plaintiff) is sabotaging the Unit Committee Members not to work with him(defendant)again. Theninparagraph8;D.W.1said,“Thedefendantansweredagainthatiftheaudiencecansaythe truth, there are some pillars erected at the back of Nana Akwamu’s house that committee 12 members have collected money from some people to erect the pillars there when the pillars shouldnotbethere”. Thethird witness for thedefendant, PrinceKusi Frimpong(D.W.3) alsoin paragraphs 7,8and9 ofhisevidenceconfirmedthesameassertionmadebythedefendantatthegathering. Soclearlyitisnotaccurateforthedefendanttosaythathenevermentionedtheplaintiff’sname. that claim by the defendant has also been contradicted by his own witnesses, i e D.W.1 and D.W.3. I must therefore submit that the evidence is very clear that the words that the plaintiff herein complainedabout,wereutteredbythedefendantherein. Ontheissueofwhetherornotthesaidwordsaredefamatory,thatalsoispalpableandtherefore notindoubt. To state that a person in public office such as a member of the Unit Committee of an electoral areahas taken money and to give certain favours that are not right, means the person is corrupt orhasengagedinacorruptconduct.Anditistritethatcorruptionisnotonlyamoralwrongbut itisalsoanoffencewhenitisperpetratedbyapersoninpublicoffice. These words were also undoubtedly directed at the plaintiff as the evidence has clearly established. When the defendant, before making those unsubstantiated statements, called on the audience gathered at the said EC program to look on his (defendant) left hand side and see the woman standing ( i e the plaintiff), he obviously was asking them to look at the plaintiff before he(defendant)madethosederogatorystatements. 13 This therefore was an intentional action on the part of the defendant. that is the reason why this court finds as wabbed, the argument made by the defendant that he never mentioned the plaintiff’s name. If the defendant asked every one to turn and look at the plaintiff in a gathering ofthatnature,thatwasevenmorethanmentioningthenameoftheplaintiff. Again, in deciding the issue of whether or not the defendant’s defamatory comments were directedattheplaintiffherein,itisequallyinstructivetostatethatthesaidactionandconductof the defendant was equally premeditated. This is because if you consider even the question that D.W.1 herein Joseph Frimpong asked the defendant, the defendant the question related to the defendant’s relationship as the Assemblyman for the Ntoase electoral area, with the Unit Committee. So the defendant could have safely answered the question without attacking the person of the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff is one of the members of the said committee, defendant could have spoken in general terms, but he chose to go after the plaintiff, when he asked the audience to look at the plaintiff. That in my relived view was unnecessary and unfair totheplaintiff. I must also state that I have painstakingly watched or reviewed the exhibits tendered by the parties herein,whichis avideoandaudiorecordings of thepresentationbythedefendant atthe program. Thereferences made, totheplaintiff by thedefendant in thoserecordings onlygo to confirmthe complaintsoftheplaintiffaboutthedefamatorystatementagainsther 14 Alsoon theissueof whetheror notthestatements have causeanyinjuryto thereputation of the plaintiff, the answer in my view is very obvious and not far fetch. The plaintiff herein, Madam Comfort Asamoah is by no means a public figure within theWenchi Municipality.At least from theevidence before this court, shewas a women’s organizer of the New Patriotic Party(NPP) in the Wenchi constituency and currently a member of the Unit Committee of the Ntoase Electoral Area.Soshehassomereputationtoprotect. Forthedefendantthereforetorefertosuchapersonsocorruptpublicly,whenthedefendanthas notevidencetosupportsamecanonlycausetheplaintiffemenceembarrassmentanddamageto herimageinthesociety. Thedefendanthasnotprovidedanyjustificationforhiscommentsas thesaidJoeheclaimedthe plaintiff and the other members of the Unit Committee took money from denied paying any moneytotheplaintifforthecommittee. It must be noted that the said Joe testified before this court as the first witness for the plaintiff (P.W.1). Finally, it is instructive to note that the place where the defendant made the defamatory comments was at a program organized by the Electoral Commission for the electorates of the Ntoase Electoral Area to interact with the contestants in the Assembly and Unit Committee elections. 15 Thiswasobvious apublic eventandthereforeapublicplace.Whatis evenmoreserious wasthe fact that both the defendant and the plaintiff were present at the event as contestants for the AssemblyandUnitCommitteeelectionsrespectively. So there is therefore no doubt that the comments by the defendant affected the plaintiff negatively. Fromtheevidencetherefore,Ifoundthefollowingasfacts; (1) That the plaintiff and defendant are both members of the Ntoase Electoral Area in Wenchiandthereforeknowthemselvesastheyhadworkedtogether. (2) That on the said 12th day of December,2023, at a public event at Ntoase the defendant made the said defamatory statements against the plaintiff; to wit “ that plaintiff and the UnitCommitteemembercollected moneyfrompeople andpermitted themto placetheir sawmillmachineandpillarsatwrongplaces”. (3) Thatthesaidstatementsweredirectedattheplaintiff:inspiteofthosebeingfalse. (4) That the said statement lowered the image of the plaintiff as a respected member and an opinionleaderintheNtoaseElectoralArea. Thissuitbeingacivilone,thelawrelatingtotheburdenofproveisthatthepartywhoinhis/her pleadings or writ of summons raise issues that are essential to the success of their case assumes theonusofproof. See:Faibi Vs StateHotels Corp{1968} GLR,176.This positionof thelaw ispremisedon thelegal principalwhichprovidesthatthepartyprovidesmustprove”. 16 The standard burden of proof required of the averring party is proof on the preponderance of probabilitiesas definedin Sections11(4) and12(1) of the evidenceAct,1975(NRCD323) which statesthat; Section 11 (4) “ In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to producesufficientevidencesothatonalltheevidenceareasonablemindcouldconcludethatthe existenceofthefactwasmoreprobablethanitsnon-existence”. Then Section 12 (1) states that; “ Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden or persuation requiresaproofbythepreponderanceoftheprobabilities”. This is explained in Section 12 (2) to mean the degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the court by which the court is convinced that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence”. Thisisanactionagainst thedefendant fordefamation. Thelawis thatinaclaimfordamages for defamation,itwasheldinthecaseofAbuVsBPIBank{2014}ABGMJ115 at141-144that; “ Words are capable of being defamatory of a plaintiff if they tend to hold him/her up in contempt, scorn or ridicule or if they tend to lower him in the estimation of right thinking membersofthesocietygenerallyoriftheycausedhim/hertobeshowedoravoided”. Fromthelawthereforetheplaintiffinprovingthatheorshehasbeendefamed,mustprovethat; (a) Thedefendantusedthewordscomplainedabout; (b) Thatthewordsaredefamatory; 17 (c) Thatthewordsweredirectedattheplaintiff;and (d) Thatthewordswerepublishedtoathirdpartyoratapublicplace. There are however defences to a claim of defamation. These defences have been enumerated in thecaseofAbuVsBPIBank(supra).Theseinclude,thefactastoafaircommentandalsothefact asthewordsbeingusedintheheatofverbalexchangedetc. In the instant case however, both plaintiff and the defendant were at a public place where the defendant was addressing a gathering. The used of the defamatorywords was not in theheat of anyexchangesbetweenthedefendantandtheplaintiff. And it must be stated also that the defendant could have answered the question put to him without attacking the person of the plaintiff herein. And granted that the defendant slipped in making the comments he could have retracted when his attention was drawn by the question as towhetherhehadanyevidencetosupportwhathe(defendant)wassaying. However,the defendant ignored all caution andwent on to defame the plaintiff at such a public gatheringwhichmadehis(defendant)actionanintentionalone. Fromtheevidenceasledbythepartieshereinandthelawasstatedtherefore,itismyconclusion, on the basis of the findings of fact made, that plaintiff has proved her claims and judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff. The defendant however has not been able to prove his counter- claimandsamefailed. Thereasonsfortheaboveconclusioninclude; 18 (1) ThatthepartieswerebothatapubliceventorganizedbytheElectoralCommissioninthe NtoaseElectoralArea. (2) That the defendant at the said public uttered the said defamatory words and directed sameattheplaintiffherein; (3) Thatthesaidwordsarefalseastheycouldnotbesubstantiatedbythedefendant. (4) That the words have caused some damage to the image of the plaintiff as an opinion leaderandapublicfigureintheNtoaseAreaandinWenchi. (5) That the plaintiff proved her claims on the preponderance of the probabilities and as requiredbylaw; (6) Thatthedefendantfailedtoprovehiscounter-claimagainsttheplaintiff. Thefollowingordersareaccordinglymade; (1) The defendant herein is ordered to within a 7 days from today the 25th day of October,2024publishaformalapologyandaretractionof thesaiddefamatorycomments onallthethree(3)RadioStationshereininWenchiaswellasontheinformationcentre(s) withintheNtoaseElectoralArea(ifany). (2) An amount of GH₵10,000.00 awarded to plaintiff and against the defendant in general damages. (3) AnamountofGH₵5,000.00awardedtotheplaintiffandagainstthedefendantascost. (4) Defendant’scounter-claimisdismissedentirely. 19 ……………………….. ISSAHABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) 20