Nartey Vrs Awisi [2022] GHACC 72 (5 December 2022)

IN THE EASTERN CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ODUMASE-KROBO ON 5TH DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS HONOUR FRANK Y. GBEDDY ESQ. CIRCUIT COURT. SUIT NO. A5/04/2019 GEORGE NARTEY VS AWISI TETTEY GLADYS JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON i. The claim of plaintiff against defendant is Ghc5,000.00 for defamation of plaintiff’s character. ii. An order for defamation to sign a bond of good behavior. PLEADING OF PLAINTIFF. The averment of plaintiff is that on the 8th day of March, 2019, a witness in this case called Abla questioned the defendant of why she made a manhole on the plot of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that even though he was not present at the scene, the defendant in the presence of the Abla rained insult to wit; plaintiff is a foolish man and an idiot. It is alleged that one Mr. T. T was also present. The plaintiff went on that, on that same 8th March, 2019, when the defendant saw him, defendant continued with the insult that plaintiff is a foolish man, an animal, big fool and a criminal. Plaintiff stated that the defamation was made in an open space. The defendant is further alleged to refer to plaintiff as a ritualist and a blood money man. Plaintiff averred that the defamation words have tarnished his reputation, respect and his image in the society. PLEADING OF DEFENDANT. The allegation of defendant is that she had never insulted the plaintiff even before anybody. She averred that she took the plaintiff to Somanya District court on a case of trespass that is the main reason why he is disturbing her. PROOF: It is on the plaintiff to prove that on the balance of probabilities that defendant has defamed him. ISSUES. Whether or not defendant insults plaintiff in the presence of one Abla and in the plaintiff’s own presence. Whether or not defendant use defamatory words to wit; foolish man, animal, big fool, criminal, blood money ritualist etc against the plaintiff openly to the hearing of others on the 8th of March, 2019. EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF (GEORGE NARTEY). The plaintiff stated that on the 8th March, 2019 the defendant without any provocation used defamation words to wit; foolish man, animal, big fool, criminal, blood money ritualist against him. Plaintiff stated also that the defamatory words were used before others such as Abla ect and same had succeeded in tarnishing his reputation. CROSS EXAMINATION The defendant repeated here that he did not insult the plaintiff. The plaintiff who insisted that defendant insulted him mentioned also that at least two (2) others were at the scene. EVIDENCE OF PW1 She is called Nyandey Henrita. Is she the Abla? She told court that she was present on the 8th March 2019 at the spot where the defendant was digging a toilet on a disputed land. Pw1 told the court that she asked the defendant whether the spot is not the disputed land and defendant started insulting the plaintiff as a fool and foolish man even though the plaintiff was not there. CROSS EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT. The defendant requested whether or not there was any other witness when she allegedly insulted the plaintiff. Q: Who is your witness that I insulted the plaintiff? A: The PW1. But the pw1 stated that pw2 was in his room hearing the defamation words. The defendant repeated that she did not insult the plaintiff. EVODENCE OF PW2 He is called Ebenezer Tettey who is stated to be present during the insurrection. He stated that he was in his room on the 8th March 2019 when he overhead the defendant insulting the plaintiff to wit; animal, foolish man. Pw2 stated that the defendant kept on calling the name of plaintiff as she use the defamation words. CROSS EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT The pw2 stated that he overhead the defendant insulting the plaintiff when he was in the room that very day but he did nothing about it. The plaintiff denied ever insulting the plaintiff. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT The defendant is called Gladys Awisi Tettey. She is a former girlfriend of plaintiff. She stated that on that day of 8th March 2019, the pw1 Abla or Abra came to her house to challenge her on the toilet she was making. Defendant stated that the challenge brought about a misunderstanding and exchange of words but plaintiff was not even there and she uttered no defamatory words against the plaintiff. CROSS EXAMINATION BY PLAINTIFF. The defendant denied ever insulting the plaintiff. The plaintiff only stated that people were there when the defamatory words were used on him. EVIDENCE OF PW1 She is also called Mavis Asiatey and the defendant is her mother. She stated that it is true the pw1 came to stop her step father from making the toilet and the situation resulted in misunderstanding as well as exchange of words between the woman (PW1) and her stepmother. Pw1 stated that her mother did not insult the plaintiff. CROSS EXAMINATION BY PLAINTIFF. The pw1 stated that she saw only the Abla who exchanged words with her mother and step father but did not see the plaintiff. Pw1 stated that her mother did not insult the plaintiff. The pw1 stated that even though she remained there with her mother, she did not see the plaintiff. The plaintiff also mentioned the husband of the defendant to be present at the scene but same was mot called as a witness. The pw1 further stated that some observers came there but her mother defendant did not insult the plaintiff. Pw1 stated that it is the Abla who misinformed the plaintiff that defendant insulted him. ANALYSIS OF FACTS /LAWs The issue of plaintiff is that the defendant insulted him in the present of pw1 and other pw2 to wit; foolish man, an animal, big fool, criminal, blood money ritualist etc on the alleged date of 8th March 2019. The defendant who rebutted the writ of plaintiff invited the pw1 her daughter an in corroboration, both denied that the defendant did not insult the plaintiff since plaintiff was not even there. It is corroboration by defendant and pw1 that it was only the pw1 who came to stop the work defendant’s husband was doing for the defendant. This challenge degenerated into misunderstanding and exchange of words but the defendant never uttered any words against the plaintiff. Both also stated that plaintiff was not at the scene. The PW2 was not at the scene but he stated that he heard an insult in his room against the plaintiff. Even though plaintiff claimed he was there, defendant and pw1 denied ever seeing him. It is also a fact that when the pw1 was there, the plaintiff was not there. The pw2 who was in his room did not see the plaintiff there.it was also establish that the pw1 who might have told the plaintiff that defendant insulted him. Even though a lot of people were there according to plaintiff, plaintiff failed to call a witness who was present with him to observe defendant insulting the plaintiff. The plaintiff was able to mention the husband of the defendant as one of the people present but same was not called to testify on the defamation CASES: PROOF CASES. i. The issue is whether or not there is any defamation ii. Whether or not plaintiff was there after all. iii. Whether or not it is true that defamatory words were used at the scene. The defendant and her pw1 are in corroboration that plaintiff was not there and there were no defamatory words used. The issue is whether or not plaintiff is able to establish defamation. The law; Section 11(1) of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323 provides that the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue against that party. See also section 11(4) 0f same Act 1975 NRCD323 which states that in producing evidence a party requires sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact is more probable than its non- existence. The section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Evidence Act1975 (NRCD323) also states that the party who made an averment or an assertion should establish same on the balance of probabilities in a civil mater. In this matter, did we see the plaintiff establishing defamation on the preponderance of probabilities against the defendant? Also the requirement is the degree 0f certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. See cases such as; 1. Osae Vs Adjeifio [2007-2008] 1GLR@502SC. 2. SarkodieVs F. K. A Company ltd [2009] SCGLR 65 by Wood JSC. 3. Ababio Vs Akwesi [1994-95] GBR Pg 77 by Akins JSC. 4. Takoradi Flour Mins Vs Sanur Farms [2005-2006] GLR 882. The supra cases are on the requirement of the party who made an averment or an assertion to establish so on the balance of probabilities. The plaintiff failed to establish his averment or assertion on the balance of probabilities against the defendant. BY COURT: I hereby set aside the plaintiff writ against the defendant. SGD H/H FRANK GBEDDY CIRCUIT COURT