WANKYIWAA v. WEREDUWAA AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court which on the 20th April, 1961, set aside the judgment of the magistrate's court dated the 28th May, 1960. The latter judgment itself reversed the judgment of the Kumasi East District Court delivered on the 2nd February, 1960, and restored the judgment of the Juaso/Bompata Local Court which on the 13th November, 1959, awarded damages in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for insult.

The parties appear to be neighbours and lived together at Bompata. The plaintiff described herself as a baker while the first defendant said she was a farmer. The evidence shows that they were, prior to October 1959, not on speaking terms. In that month, there was an incident between them caused by the alleged disposal of faeces in the plaintiff's dumphill by the defendant. This resulted in angry exchanges between them and coarse language was used. The sequel to that quarrel was this action and a never-ending series of appeals. This is the fourth appellate court to become seised of this matter.

The language which was alleged to have been used by the defendant is contained in the particulars of claim and was so grossly obscene that counsel who argued the appeal before me fought shy of reading them out. Not all of them were found to have been established. No court is contaminated by bad language and I ought not to feel the sense of inhibition which both counsel seemed to have felt when it came to reading aloud the words alleged to have been used by the defendant. What was proved was that the defendant spoke and published of the plaintiff that "her vagina stinks." The trial local court was satisfied of this and awarded damages in the plaintiff's favour. This judgment was reversed by the Kumasi East District Court to which the defendant appealed. For reasons which were stated [p.334] in the judgment of the magistrate which I wholly endorse, the magistrate's court restored the decision of the trial court but reduced the damages from £G20 to £G5. In sustaining the damages, the learned magistrate said "I am satisfied from the record of proceedings that the first respondent abused appellant concerning her private parts in terms that would be most objectionable to any self-respecting woman." In reducing the damages, the magistrate obviously took into consideration the fact that the words were spoken in a heated moment.

As I said, this judgment was summarily reversed by the learned circuit judg