NKRUMAH v. FOLI AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.

The plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally ¢10,000 damages for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The facts of the case were that on 21 November 1979, the plaintiff and her four daughters were arrested by the Sekondi Police and locked up in cells. They were released on bail the next day and later prosecuted before the District Court, Sekondi, on a charge of assault. The first defendant gave evidence as the complainant and victim of the assault. The second defendant is the father of the first defendant. He never accused anybody of assaulting him. He, however, went to the police station on the day the plaintiff and her four daughters were arrested and detained. He also attended court during the trial but never gave evidence. The criminal prosecution terminated with the acquittal of the plaintiff and the conviction of her four children. The plaintiff thereafter instituted this action claiming that her arrest and detention were unlawful and were caused by the defendants. She also accused the defendants of malicious prosecution. She claims damages for loss of earnings for the period of the trial which took fifteen adjournments at the rate of ¢200 a day. She also claims ¢600 as solicitor's fees and transport charges to and from court during the trial. Her daughters did not sue.

The first defendant states that she alone lodged a complaint of assault with the police against the plaintiff and her four daughters and that her father, the second defendant, merely came to meet her at the entrance of the police station. She and her father vehemently deny ever causing the arrest and detention of the plaintiff and also responsibility for the subsequent prosecution of the plaintiff. They also dispute the plaintiff's entitlement to the damages claimed. I would first deal with the plaintiff's arrest. There is no dispute that policemen arrested the plaintiff and her four daughters upon a complaint of assault lodged by the first defendant against them. The plaintiff's evidence and that of her daughter, Grace York, the first plaintiff witness, showed that none of the defendants actually led the police to the houses of the plaintiff and her daughters. The first defendant said she mentioned the names of her assailants to the police and the latter went to arrest them. She never authorised or directed the arrest. Her father never did so either. How then did the police know the plaintiff and her children so