christopher mtikilo vs horace norba others 1995 tzhc 725 27 july 1995

T . 'M S HIGH COUHT OF T/iHSAHIA ;,.T D /Jl 3 3 S1JJJ11 t jr r c : o jr .i iiaKDEE 44/ 1993 csL^cc^anrrw ; , . - , . * * ..^prnLLSTo? S 1 .3US t t -p ■ >- * p r - II U L J- :■ G IlSUI'gyJS On 20/ 3/93 p i ra n t i f f nro r,0v* Cirri stophar l i t i k i l a f i l e d a s u i t on defam ation a g a in st th e oight defendants* Ho c la in e d fro n thon shs#35C n i l l i o n h o in c u n liq u id a ted danagos* By 20/ 4/ 9 4 p lead in gs wore completed# S x ccp t f o r tho t h ir d defendant J 0h Lusindo and kcvcnth defendrnt Baxaaa Newspaper, w r itte n statem ents o f d e f a c e f o r th o o th e r defendants had Seen f i l e d and duly served on th e p l a i n t i f f . In t h e i r jo i n t -w ritten statem en t o f defoncot . f i r s t dofondant Horace K o lin b a who was, an tho m a te r ia l tin e j th e General S o cro ta ry of Ghana oha Ilapinduaij and s ix th defendant tho h o ^ isto ro d Trusfoocs o f Ghana oha, Hapinduaij h o ro in n fto r r e f e r r e d rx G O . r a i s e d a oountor claim in which th ey jo i n t l y d a in o d she* COO, 0 0 0 *’. X) r i Z l f M i r r &?nrgoB s u ffe re d hy thon as a rosuLt o f d cfo n ato ry wo*:,\3 *a';t jrocl hy t ‘ -• p l a i n t i f f * Aooor&inc xeoerd she oaso was fix o d f o r hoaxing f o r tho f i r s t tin o or. 9/ 8/ 94* 2*or tm r o e o r d c r e a s o n tho ca se did n o t trice o f f on th a t day* I t was adjourned f o r nontion on 1 4 /9 /9 4 and e v e n tu a lly f is o d f o r hoaxing on 22/ 1 1 / 94 . On th a t day p l a i n t i f f was absent end tho c o u rt was in fo m o d hy h is w ife th a t ho was on fo u r i n tho U nited s t a t e s * A ctin g on t h i s fenfo^nation th e case was adjourned f o r hoaxing on 7 / 3 / 9 5 . Again on th a t dry p l a i n t i f f was ahsont* His w ifo to ld tho co u rt th a t ho was thon in London and ho would have comd hack a f t e r g e t tin g assu rm co from tlie D ir e c to r o f C rin in a l In v e s tig a tio n of h is s a f o ty a g a in st th e rounorod p ir n o f a s s a s s in a tin g hin* .A fter o v e rru lin g th e defence co u n se ls' prayor f o r d is n is s a l o f tho s u it f o r non appofranco o f tho p l a i n t i f f ? tho co u rt adjourned tho oaso f o r h ea rin g on 25/ 7/95 to 2 8 /7/95<? T~ifo o f th e p l a i n t i f f was hopeful th a t w ith in th ose fo u r nonthr p? aintiff would have cor.o back* Indeed tho p l a i n t i f f i s now hade* F o r !h ic in fecm a tien tho co u rt ta k e s ju d ic ia l n o tic e o f what has boon reported *'r: newspapers, Eut f o r uncffiplcinod reaso n p l r i n t i f i s a g rin cl-soat* In their *‘cint .n.ihnissi'ai cou n sels for th e defendants tar f o r th e d isn issa l. of the s u it oithc-: for- non appoaxanco as under Order 9 r u le 8 or undor Order 17 ru lo s 15 ( 2 ) ( i v ) o f ~ Procedure Code as mended hy G*K»500 o f 1991» ~ 2 - In addition Mr* ^ rn g a rik a , -who i s advocating f o r f i r s t , fo u rth end s ix th defendants i s praying th a t f i r s t and s ix th defendants ho allowed to prove th e ir countorelain esparto* Fron the chrondogiccl events of th is case as a f aro mentioned, I am convinced th a t p l a i n t i f f i s aworo th a t th e case had been schodulod f o r hearing on 25/ 7/93 • ^h is date was fix e d in the presence o f h i 3 w ife who he had Teen apparently in stru cted to keep tho court informed o f h is whoroa”bouts* As pointed out o a r lio r , p l a i n t i f f i s hack in tho country hence ho ought to have appearod fo r h is case as schodulod* iH tcm a tiv o ly he ought to havo furnished tho court w ith explanation, as ho had boon Tcspcaaeiwly "'-on doing in tho previous occasions, o f h is ahscnco* Ho has dono none of the two* Taking in to account h is propraotod record of absonoo, the learned couuooIr f o r the defendants aro, with ro sp o ct, rig h t in requ esting tho court to invoke tho provisions o f Order 9 ru le 8 of tho C iv il Procedure Code* But cvon i f i t i s arguod th -1 tho ap p lica tio n o f tho said p rov ision i s in appropriate according to tho f a c t s on rocord, tho su it i s disnissahLe under tho inhorcnt powers o f tho court* His conducts aro c le a r in d ic a tio n th a t p l a i n t i f f i s nljfusing oourt process* I t i s the duty o f tho court to o rro s t such misconduct 1?j using' i t s inherent powers* Tho observation o f tho court o f .Appeal fo r E astern A frica in Mukisa v IJV-st Bnd Co,(1q6q) E*A* 696 i s q u ite i llu s t r a t i v e on t h is view* D eliv erin g tho judgment o f the oou rt, Lair, JA said? - ’•Iain o f tho opinion th a t tho provisions of tho C iv il Procoduro aVL od f o r tho dism issal of s u its fo r want of prosocution do not purport to ho ex clu r'v o , and do not f o t t o r tho c o u r t's inlioront ju r is d ic tio n to d ic n iss s u its in circumstoncos not f a l l i n g d ir o c tly w ithin those provicipn^, i f i t i s n ecessary to do so to prevent in ju s t ic e or ahuso o f tho process of tho co u rt*" With rc sp e c t, t h is observation i s q u ite relev an t in he- circumstancos • o f t h is oase* Hcnco t h is s u it i s d isn isso d j with c o s ts , fo r nonappearanoe, hence want o f prosocution, o ith e r under Order 0 ru le 0 or undor sootion 95 ° f the C iv il Procoduro Code* As the regards the counter claim , d espite of being sorvod w ith tho sano p l a i n t i f f has not offorod dofonoo as roquirod by Order 0 ru lo 11(1) o f tho C iv il ProcodhJrc Code* Hence in tern s o f Order 0 r ulo 1 4 ( l ) o f the C iv il Procodure Code, f i r s t and s ix th defendants aro granted loavo to prove th o ir count or claim ocparto by a ffid a v it* h* u hbuhx JUDGE* * . . . * / 2- l r 2 Mrs Maajnr fo r other counsels* P l a i n t i f f absent Mr* Mselon f o r Hyrjacrrilca I would prny th a t tho oxpnrte proof "bo Ijy o r r l oviclonco so th a t a sse sso rs najr ho sunnonod* COUOJt Tho Court i s g ra to fu l f o r t h is inform ation. Hcnco i t i s ordorod th a t or. per to proof i s hy o ra l ovidonco. OPvDSRi Bsc paarto proof 22/ 9/95 Assossors to ho sunnonod. li* A* IL3TJL.1 JUDGE 27/7/95 I CMTBT THAT OEIS IS L TZZ0B 00SPY CP EI3 0HIGH'TAL* S3iioiL s ja m s 1 s z iM ijii, 1