Automated Summary
Key Facts
The court found that the defendant instigated the plaintiff's arrest by falsely accusing him of planning to kidnap Awuta for GHc20,000.00. The plaintiff was detained for one day and released without charges. The court determined the prosecution was without reasonable cause, resulting in the plaintiff's reputation being damaged and loss of income as a commercial driver. Judgment was awarded in favor of the plaintiff for GHc20,000.00 in general damages and GHc5,000.00 in costs.
Issues
- Whether the defendant's instigation of the plaintiff's arrest was without reasonable or probable cause and in bad faith.
- Whether the defendant instigated or was actively instrumental in the prosecution of the plaintiff for the alleged kidnapping.
- Whether the defendant's actions in instigating the plaintiff's arrest were motivated by malice, such as spite or improper intent.
- Whether the plaintiff was unconditionally released by the police without any charges and the case was terminated in his favor.
- Whether the defendant made the statement that the plaintiff was planning to kidnap one Awuta unless he paid GHc20,000.00, which the plaintiff claims is defamatory.
- Whether the plaintiff's reputation and livelihood as a commercial driver were damaged by the arrest and the spread of the kidnapping allegations.
Holdings
- The court concluded the defendant acted in bad faith and without reasonable or probable cause. The defendant's failure to call key witness Awuta and the lack of evidence supporting the kidnapping claim indicated malice.
- The court awarded general damages of GHc20,000.00 and costs of GHc5,000.00 to the plaintiff, finding his reputation and livelihood were harmed by the false allegations.
- The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant made a defamatory comment against him. The evidence did not establish that the defendant's statement was defamatory in the legal sense.
- The court determined the defendant instigated the plaintiff's arrest and the matter was terminated in the plaintiff's favor. The police released the plaintiff unconditionally and did not charge him with any offense.
Remedies
- General damages of GHc20,000.00 awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant.
- Cost of GHc5,000.00 awarded against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.
Monetary Damages
25000.00
Legal Principles
- The court applied the principle that the burden of proof rests on the party asserting the affirmative of their case, as outlined in the Evidence Act, 1975 (Sections 11 and 12). This includes requiring sufficient evidence to make the existence of a fact more probable than not.
- The standard of proof by preponderance of probabilities was emphasized, requiring the court to be convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence. This was applied to evaluate the credibility of corroboration versus uncorroborated testimony.
- The court referenced defamation law requirements, including proof of publication, defamatory meaning, and malice. The defendant's failure to call key witnesses (e.g., Awuta) and the plaintiff's evidence of reputational harm were central to determining malice and liability.
Precedent Name
- Saville v. Roberts
- Bank of West Africa Ltd v. Ackun
- Tonado Enterprises v. Chou Sen Lin
- Don Ackah v. Pergah Transport Ltd & Others
- Owusu-Domena v. Amoah
- Lamptey alias Nkpa v. Fanyie & Others
Cited Statute
Evidence Act, 1975
Judge Name
Alhassan Dramani
Passage Text
- I find that the plaintiff has failed to prove his claim that the defendant made a defamatory comment or statement against him.
- General damages of GHc20,000.00 is awarded in favour of Plaintiff against the Defendant. I also award cost of GHc5,000.00 against the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff.
- I find that it was the defendant who instigated the arrest of the plaintiff. I further find that the defendant did not only instigate the arrest but was very instrumental in the entire process.