JUDGMENT OF LAMPTEY JA.
On or about 7 July 1986, Alhaji Sidi (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) sent a letter to the Secretary for Roads and Highways, Accra. On the face of the said letter a copy of it was addressed to Isaac Issah (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). In the view of the plaintiff, the said copied letter was defamatory of him. He sued the defendant in the High Court, Tamale for defamation. By his writ of summons, the plaintiff claimed against the defendant ¢10 million damages for libel. The case was heard on the merits. The learned trial judge concluded his written judgment as follows: "In the result I do say the plaintiff should succeed. I accordingly enter judgment for him. I award ¢1 million damages and ¢5,000 costs."
The defendant was aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court and appealed to this court on a number of grounds. Before us, one [p.601] of the grounds of appeal forcefully argued by learned counsel for the defendant was that the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that there was publication of the offending letter, exhibit A. Learned counsel for the plaintiff took the court through the list of persons and office-holders to whom copies of exhibit A were sent. He submitted that the trial judge was right in finding that the letter, exhibit A, was published by the defendant to these persons. In his judgment, the trial judge made the following observation on the issue of publication:
"It is clear from the above that exhibit A in fact is defamatory of the plaintiff. Exhibit A being in print is libel and not slander. The words contained in exhibit A are defamatory, they clearly refer to the plaintiff and were published. By publication I mean the words were made known to some person or persons other than the plaintiff. Exhibit A was copied to persons other than the plaintiff."
In coming to this conclusion the learned judge referred to and relied on the testimonies of the second, third, fourth and fifth plaintiff witnesses. It is now necessary to consider whether or not exhibit A was in law published to each of the above witnesses. In his evidence the second plaintiff witness, Daniel Duakwei Darko, described himself as Acting Regional Engineer with the Department of Feeder Roads. The second plaintiff witness told the court that he received exhibit A and read it. He stated his candid opinion on exhibit A to the court as follows: "I did not get in touch with the plaintiff when I received exhibit A. I did
