JUDGMENT OF KORSAH C.J.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court, Accra refusing to grant an order of certiorari to remove and quash the [p.8] proceedings and judgment of the Kpandu District Native Court "A" in a suit in which plaintiff claimed damages for defamation. He alleged that he had been slandered in that the defendant had said at a public meeting:-
(a) that plaintiff must cease applying the title of "Odikro" to himself;
(b) that he (the defendant) would sue plaintiff before any competent court if plaintiff continued using the title of "Odikro".
The plaintiff had, in fact, been elected and installed, and had been known as "odikro" over a period of eight years, and there has been, and is, no dispute as to this fact.
The defendant admitted publishing these words concerning the plaintiff, and explained that he gave this warning because one Katamantu once said in an arbitration that the real post or title of the plaintiff in the Twi language is "mankrado" and not "odikro", Defendant further contended that the predecessors of the plaintiff were called "afetor" and not "odikro". It should be noted that "afetor" means in the Ewe language "head of a house" (that is, of a community). The Twi title "odikro" means precisely the same thing. The Native Court rejected the defendant's explanation, held that the plaintiff had been slandered, and entered judgment for him for £70 damages and costs.
There has been no appeal from that judgment of the Native Court on the merits. Counsel for the defendant elected rather to take his stand upon a contention that the proceedings instituted by the plaintiff raised a question relating to political or constitutional relations (under customary law) between chiefs, which, under the State Councils (Colony and Southern Togoland) Ordinance, is triable only by the State Council. It is enough to say that we accept the contrary view, expressed by the learned judge who heard the application, that it is not such a matter, but is a personal suit over which the Native Court had full jurisdiction.
We would wish to take this opportunity of pointing out that justice may well be defeated by a party who accords too much importance to, and lays an exaggerated and (as in this case) unjustifiable emphasis upon, the impingement of the law relating to constitutional matters on the facts of a case. In the present case, if there was a slander at all (and we for ourselves would say that it is a moot point) it is a slander
