On 1 March 1967, the applicant filed a motion on notice praying for certain reliefs. The said motion was dismissed as frivolous in the absence of the applicant. He later applied for the motion to be re-listed as he had sent a telegram asking the court for adjournment before the motion was dismissed. Leave was granted and the motion was re-listed. Meanwhile, on 28 March 1967, the applicant had filed another motion entitled "Amended motion paper to replace the former one filed on 1 March 1967." When the applicant's motion was therefore re-listed for hearing on 12 May 1967, he dealt with the amended motion filed on 28 March 1967 and not the original motion filed on 1 March 1967.
In the application filed on 28 March 1967, the applicant prayed for three specific reliefs which briefly were as follows:
(1) An order of injunction restraining the first respondent Bishop Lartey from performing his duties as Bishop of the A.M.E. Zion Church because he is guilty of heresy and also under the Law of Witchcraft Act, 1735 (9 Geo. 2, c. 5), or the law of trial by ordeal and under the laws of the church.
[p.382]
(2) An order of injunction restraining the said bishop from further interfering with the duties, rights and privileges of the applicant as a member, elder or minister of the A.M.E. Zion Church and from continuing to threaten to publish as he did such serious, disgraceful and offensive charges and allegations as exhibit DI herein.
(3) An order enjoining upon the two respondents herein to publish a letter of apology in named newspapers for publishing the said exhibit DI.
After having heard the applicant and counsel for the respondents, the applicant suggested that I should deliver my ruling on 25 May 1967 as that date (which is today) would be convenient to him. I shall now proceed to deliver my ruling on the three remedies sought by the applicant.
In the first place the motion paper referred to a suit No. 16/1963 in which the present applicant was the plaintiff and the present respondents were the defendants. In that suit the plaintiff claimed damages for libel published by the defendants. I delivered my judgment on 23 February 1967 and held that the defendants were not liable and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. Subsequently, the plaintiff applied for review of the said judgment but on 12 May 1967, I decided not to grant the application for review. It seems to me therefore that the order sought by the applicant to enjoin the defendants to publish a letter o
