ANTHONY v. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF CAPE COAST

JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.

The plaintiff in this case is a married woman and a prominent member of the Catholic Mboa Kuw a benevolent religious society in Cape Coast. She is by vocation a seamstress and a trader in textiles. On the evidence she seems to enjoy a prominent position and respect in both her family of origin and her marital family and also of the said Mboa Kuw of which society until the last elections she was its president. She is also the mother of about three children. The University College of Cape Coast (herein called the defendants), is an institution in the same town and as its name implies is one of the highest academic forums of learning in Ghana.

Some time in the month of June 1971 the defendants published and advertised several copies of the plaintiff's photographs in the form of postcards printed at their central photographic studio and exhibited them for sale at the university bookshop at a price of twenty pesewas each. At the back of each postcard were the following: "Traditional hairdo in Ghana." A copy of this photograph was tendered in evidence at the trial and accepted as exhibit A. The evidence shows that information got to the plaintiff about the publication and sale of her photographs at the defendants' bookshop through the plaintiff's fifth witness, her husband, who had earlier been informed of the same by the plaintiff's second witness his son by the plaintiff. As a result of events which followed the discovery of the publication and sale of copies of exhibit A, the plaintiff caused her solicitors to write to the defendants to demand compensation. On receipt of an unfavourable reply to her demand, she commenced this action for damages.

By her writ of summons she claimed against the defendants as follows:

"The plaintiff's claim is for: N¢40,000.00 damages for libel committed against the plaintiff by the defendants by unlawfully printing, publishing and selling the plaintiff's photograph in the [p.302] form of postcards at the defendants' bookshop since about January 1971, without the plaintiff's knowledge and consent, and fraudulently deceiving the public and her family into believing that the plaintiff had lent herself to such mean advertisement and lives and thrives on earnings therefrom and that it is the defendants' lawful product or production."

In paragraph (6)-(11) of her accompanying statement of claim she did not complain of the picture nor the inscriptions at the back of the postcard as being defamatory i