AMADJEI AND OTHERS v. OPOKU WARE

JUDGMENT OF BLAY J.S.C.

The appellants who were plaintiffs in the court below together claimed against the respondent £G5,000 damages for false imprisonment. It appears from the evidence that the appellants are important citizens of the town of Kwabeng in the Akim Abuakwa traditional area, of which the respondent is the chief.

The appellants' case was that the respondent on the 28th October, 1961, made a false charge against them to the police whereupon they were arrested, detained and subsequently escorted through the streets of Kwabeng to the Ahenfie, the residence of the respondent; that after their detention lasting for about two hours, i.e. from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., they were released by the police who said they could find nothing against them as the respondent refused to prefer any formal charge against them. The defence of the respondent was that he did not cause the arrest of the appellants or any of them.

The action was tried before Ollennu J. (as he then was) in the High Court, Accra, and the appellants’ claim was dismissed by him with costs. It is from this judgment that the appellants have appealed to this court on seven grounds, namely, that:

“(1) The learned judge failed to appreciate the legal meaning of arrest in a case of false imprisonment.

(2) The learned judge erred in not considering the chain of circumstances initiated by the defendant in causing the arrest of the plaintiffs, culminating in an order to the police to arrest the plaintiffs.

(3) The learned judge entirely failed to appreciate the evidential value of exhibits A and B which recorded the orders of the defendant upon which the police acted.

(4) The learned judge erred in accepting what he liked from the said exhibits A and B and rejecting material evidence.

(5) There was no basis whatsoever for the learned judge’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ evidence when the defendant had admitted most of the same.

(6) The learned judge confused the police evidence of a request for an order to take the plaintiffs to Anyinam with an order for their arrest at Kwabeng.

(7) The malice of the defendant against the plaintiffs as shown in the evidence adduced in court was not considered by the learned judge and he erred thereby.”

Counsel in arguing grounds (1) to (5) of the grounds of appeal referred in extenso to the evidence adduced at the trial both in support of the appellants’ case and in support of the defence.

From the evidence on record the following facts clearly emerge: Two con