Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 29, 1976
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
The parties to this suit are all Dagomba citizens. The first plaintiff being the son of the second plaintiff. The events which seem to have provoked the present controversy between them as pleaded by the plaintiffs are that:
"About 1967 the defendant informed his son, Iddrisu Fuseini, that he, the defendant, is the father of the first plaintiff and the said Iddrisu Fuseini in the presence of and to the hearing of other persons told the first plaintiff that the defendant is the father of the first plaintiff. On or about 8 November 1970 the defendant in the presence of and to the hearing of other persons at Kumbungu told the second plaintiff that he, the defendant, is the father of the first plaintiff. The statement of the defendant that the first plaintiff is the defendant's son might reasonably be interpreted to mean and it was so understood to mean by those to whom it was published that the first plaintiff does not know who his father is, and further that the second plaintiff is dishonest. The plaintiffs say that by the defendant's claim that the first [p.419] plaintiff is his son the defendant has injured the reputation of the plaintiffs."
The defendant joined issue with the plaintiffs on their claim and pleaded by paragraph (4) to (7) of his defence as follows:
"(4) In further answer to paragraph (5) of the statement of claim the defendant will say that in or about the month of November 1970 the second plaintiff lodged a complaint to the Kumbungu chief butcher whereupon the defendant was called and asked about his previous abortive marriage to the second plaintiff. The defendant in accordance with Dagomba custom narrated the incident.
(5) The plaintiffs therefore authorised and/or assented to and/or acquiesced in the publication of the said incident.
(6) The defendant denies ever calling the first plaintiff his son, as alleged in paragraph (6) of the statement of claim. Alternatively the defendant denies that the words if they were published at all, which is denied, bore or were understood to bear to are capable or bearing any other meaning defamatory of the plaintiffs.
(7) Paragraph (7) of the plaintiffs' statement of claim is denied."
At the trial, the plaintiffs produced evidence by themselves and two other witnesses. The sum total of that evidence reveals that the matters complained of were published on two occasions and at different places. The first publication is alleged to have taken place in Tamale where the son of the defendant, the f
AI Generated Summary
This defamation suit among Dagomba citizens arose from statements about paternity. The first plaintiff, son of the second plaintiff, alleged that the defendant and his son, Iddrisu Fuseini, asserted that the defendant is the first plaintiff’s father, harming both plaintiffs’ reputations. Evidence showed two alleged publications: one in Tamale by the defendant’s son and another at Kumbungu before village elders. The court found the Tamale evidence riddled with inconsistencies and thus rejected that claim. The Kumbungu meeting was a customary arbitration convened on the second plaintiff’s complaint; the defendant, living in Kumasi, reluctantly recounted an earlier relationship, the pregnancy, and his belief that the first plaintiff resulted. Applying qualified privilege, the court held that statements made in such recognized customary tribunals, in self-vindication and absent malice, are immune from slander liability, and dismissed the action without costs.