DAASEBRE NANA OSEI BONSU II v. AKWASI MENSAH & ORS

J U D G M E N T

GBADEGBE, JSC:-

On 9th April 2003, the Daily Dispatch published an article of and concerning the respondent that had the following headline: “Mamponghene in 264 million cedis fraud”. Following the said publication, the respondent on 22 April 2003, caused the writ of civil summons herein to issue against the appellants before the High Court, Accra claiming general and special damages for the “false and malicious publication” and an order of injunction restraining the appellants, their agents and workmen from continuing to publish the said materials of him. The action proceeded to trial at the end of which the learned trial judge of the High Court dismissed all the reliefs sought in the action. The respondent being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the delivery of the trial court launched an appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal after hearing the parties reversed the decision of the trial court and allowed the claims indorsed on the writ of summons herein including damages in the sum of one thousand Ghana cedis. The instant proceedings arise as a result of an appeal lodged from the decision of the Court of Appeal by the appellants to this court.

We think that the facts giving rise to the action herein have been sufficiently stated in the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeal and as such we desire not to spend any further time on it in this delivery which raises purely for our consideration whether on the admitted facts, the judgment that is on appeal to us was right? In our view having regard to the nature of the publication, the respondent was wounded in his self esteem and therefore the question that we have to decide is whether the defence of fair comment, which was one of the two defences raised by the appellants to the claim in the trial court was well made out? We are of the opinion that although the trial court and the Court of Appeal considered the effect of the appellants statement of defence as raising before it a plea of justification, a careful study of the relevant pleadings contained in paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 of the statement of defence only raise the pleas of qualified privilege and fair comment. See: (1) SUTHERLAND v STOPES [1925] AC 47; (2) JONES v KELTON [1963] 3 All ER 952 at 956; (3) LONDON ARTISTS LTD v LITTLER [1969] 3 All ER 193.These cases discuss the misconception as to the nature of the plea that is raised in the relevant paragraphs of the appellants’ statement of defence