GODWIN KOMLA NYAGA VS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2016
GHANA
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2016
GHANA
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute between Godwin Komla Nyaga and the Attorney General regarding alleged police misconduct. Nyaga claimed unlawful detention of his excavator, assault during arrest, and false imprisonment. The court dismissed Nyaga's case, finding that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his claims. The court held that the police's actions in arresting and detaining Nyaga were lawful under Article 14 of the 1992 Constitution. The case highlights important principles regarding burden of proof in civil cases, the prevalence of documentary evidence over oral testimony, and the requirements for lawful arrest and detention.
The plaintiff, Godwin Komla Nyaga, instituted this action against theAttorney General for the following reliefs; 1. A declaration that the plaintiff was assaulted on the 29th day of August 2009 by police officers from Apinamang Police Station 2. A declaration that the plaintiff on 25/08/09 was unlawfully arrested by the police officers from Apinamang Police Station 3. A declaration that the plaintiff was falsely imprisoned by the police officers of Apinamang Police Station on 25/08/09 4. A declaration that plaintiff’s excavator was wrongfully and or unlawfully detained 5. A declaration that the conduct of the police officers towards the plaintiff on 25/08/09 tainted his reputation and same was defamatory of plaintiff 6. Aggravated or exemplary damages against Defendant for defamation 7. General damages for assault, unlawful arrest and false imprisonment 8. Recovery of the sum of GHC21, 600 being the sum lost to plaintiff by reason of plaintiff’s inability to rent out the said excavator due to its wrongful detention 9. Special damages and cost Briefly, the facts of this case are that the plaintiff, Godwin Komla Nyaga, hired out his Akerman 420 excavator to one Okwani through his agentSamuel Marfo.
The terms of the oral agreement reached between theparties were that the excavator was to be used for a period of ten days atthe cost of GHS 8, 000 inclusive of the cost of transportation of theexcavator to the mining site.
The excavator worked for a period of six hoursand developed a steering problem.
As a result, it was parked at the sitewhilst the plaintiff was duly informed.
About one month after thebreakdown of the excavator, the plaintiff went to the site with mechanicsto repair the excavator.
While at the site, Okwani and his men accostedthe plaintiff and led him to the Apinamang Police Station where he claimedhe had reported the matter.
At the Apinamang Police Station, it was agreedthat the plaintiff should be given two weeks to refund Okwani’s money asOkwani indicated clearly that he had abrogated the contract.
When theplaintiff failed to pay Okwani’s money after persistent demands made byOkwani, he was arrested at his workplace in Accra, detained overnight atthe Apinamang Police station and released on bail the following day.
The plaintiff’s case is that his arrest and subsequent overnight detentionat the Apinamang Police station was unlawful.
He further alleged that thePolice unlawfully detained his excavator, as a result of which he wascompell