JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.
We dismissed the appeal in this case on 8 January 1964 reserving our reasons for so doing; we now proceed to give the reasons.
By his writ of summons the plaintiff claimed £G15,000 and an order for injunction restraining the defendant from speaking and publishing defamatory words against him. The writ itself disclosed no cause of action; but this defect, however, was cured by the statement of claim which was filed together with the writ of summons.
The plaintiff was at all material times a legal practitioner and a member of Parliament for the Sekyere West electoral district; he occupied a flat in house No. AA8, Kwame Nkrumah Road, Kumasi, as a tenant of the defendant. He and the defendant had been friends for a number of years prior to the incident which led to the action; and from letters he wrote to the defendant while a student in the United Kingdom, which [p.47] were admitted in evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff had, in the past, regarded the defendant as his benefactor.
The words complained of are: (1) "You are a thief"; (2) "You are a hopeless lawyer; Se ennye Owusu Afriyie a anka wonnya asem nni"; (3) "You are a hopeless M.P." In respect of these words the plaintiff pleaded in paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) of his statement of claim that:
"(7) By the words `You are a thief' the defendant meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment.
(8) By the words `You are a hopeless lawyer; Se ennye Owusu Afriyie a anka wonnya asem nni' the defendant meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff was incompetent and inefficient in his profession as a lawyer.
(9) By the words `You are a hopeless M.P.' the defendant meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff was unfit and of no use in his office as a member of Parliament for the Sekyere West electoral district."
The defendant denied speaking or publishing the words as alleged by the plaintiff; he further pleaded that even if the said words were uttered and published, they were not, in the circumstances of the case understood to bear any meaning defamatory of the plaintiff.
Upon these pleas the following issues were joined: (1) Whether or not the defendant spoke and published the words complained of; (2) whether or not the words complained of are defamatory or were understood to bear a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff; and (3) The quantum of damages.
The questions (1) whether or not th
