GLALEY VRS NUNOGOE (A5/27/2023) [2023] GHADC 1124 (31 May 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, KPETOE. HELD ON WEDNESDAY 31ST MAY, 2023. BEFORE HIS WORSHIP CHRISTIAN HEVI AFFUFLU, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. SUIT №:- A5/27/2023 MADAM ABLA GLALEY ) ... PLAINTIFF -VRS- YAWO NUNOGOE ) ... DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant was for (a) a tangible reason to justify the derogatory publication of words made against her in the Ewe Language which translated into English language mean: “You Abla Glaley, are you also a useful person? If people are talking what do you think you are before you want to interrupt? You are a barren woman, you have never given birth before. If people are talking you also want to interrupt.” The plaintiff continued that the defendant if found liable to pay compensatory damages of GH¢5,000.00 to her.” (b) A public retraction of the said publication made by defendant against plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she and the defendant are members of Kpegisu Association. She stated that on 22nd October 2022, the members travelled to Tsrigoni, near Ziope for the funeral of a member who passed-on some time ago. After the funeral all went back to join the vehicle for the return journey. The plaintiff stated that by the time she reached the vehicle, she realised that the defendant was already on board the vehicle. The plaintiff continued that as she entered the vehicle she overheard the defendant saying in Ewe “This driver is coming to drive this vehicle recklessly without any sense.” The plaintiff stated that the driver is her relative so she intervened and told the defendant not to make such comments about the driver. That if the driver should hear that statement about him made by the defendant that may result into a misunderstanding between them. The plaintiff stated that while on the way, one Lessure told the driver to take his time as they are almost at home. The defendant then responded if Lessure was also going to say something which would become a hook that she will swallow. The plaintiff stated that if the defendant was still holding on to the earlier issue between them. To the surprise of the plaintiff, the defendant raised her voice and made those defamatory statements as endorsed on the writ of summons. According to the defendant while they were getting onto the vehicle, two of her relatives wanted to sit on top of the vehicle. She advised them not to do so as the road is not in good shape. And that those who wanted to sit on top of the vehicle were drunk. She therefore advised them against that decision of theirs. The defendant went on that the plaintiff retorted that if so, then the defendant should go and drive the vehicle. The defendant stated that plaintiff went on to say that she is dirty and smelling. The defendant went on that the plaintiff slapped her in the face with her two hands. The defendant went on that at Keyime one Lessure (DW1) wanted to get down. The plaintiff removed her slippers and wanted to use it to slap the defendant but unfortunately it rather slapped the said Lessure. The defendant denied that she insulted the plaintiff. That it was the plaintiff who rather insulted her. The defendant counter-claimed for plaintiff using abusive words on her to wit: “you are smelling, your mouth is smelling, you are a dirty woman.” The issues to be determined were whether or not the statement alleged made by the defendant against the plaintiff were defamatory. To prove a case of defamation the plaintiff must show that; a false statement purporting to be a fact were made against her by the defendant, the statement was published or communicated to a third party; some harm was caused to the reputation of the persons and also that the defendant was negligent in her statement. Did the defendant in the present case issued those statement against the plaintiff? The defendant in answer to a question, stated that she responded to the abusive words the plaintiff used against her. The defendant though she denied in her written statement, she admitted using those words against the plaintiff. In our traditional set-up to say someone is useless, that lowers the reputation of the person if such is communicated to a third party. In the present case, the defendant uttered those words against the plaintiff in the presence of some members of the association including PW1 and DW1. In a confrontation to tell a fellow woman that she is barren as she has not given birth before will injure her reputation. The statements uttered by the defendant on that fateful day were defamatory. “- -- words are capable of being defamatory of a plaintiff if they tend to hold him up to contempt, scorn or ridicule or if they turned to lower him in estimation of right thinking members of society generally, or if they cause him to be shunned or avoided.” See ABU V BP1 BANK [2014] 68 GMJ 115. The defendant’s statements against the plaintiff were defamatory and had caused injury to the reputation of the plaintiff. The defendant had counter-claimed that the plaintiff used abusive words on her. However, she could not prove it other than merely stating it. While the defendant stated the plaintiff used her slippers to slap the witness of the defendant (DW1), the witness herself could not prove to court she was slapped. The defendant’s claim was an afterthought and same failed. The statements uttered by the defendant against the plaintiff were defamatory and injurious to the reputation of the plaintiff. On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff has proved her case. By Court: The plaintiff has proved her case against the defendant. The defendant is found liable to the claim of the plaintiff. She is to retract the said words and apologise to the plaintiff. She is fined in the sum of GH¢2,000.00 as compensation to the plaintiff. Cost of GH¢350.00 for the plaintiff for the cause. (SGD.) H/W CHRISTIAN HEVI-AFFUFLU DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 4