BONSU v. FORSON
[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]
DATE: 7TH MARCH, 1962
COUNSELS
I. K. Aboagye for the plaintiff.
E. K. Wiredu for Owusu Yaw for the defendant.
JUDGMENT OF DJABANOR J.
The plaintiff instituted this action claiming:
“(1) Fifteen thousand pounds (£G15,000) damages.
(2) An injunction restraining the defendant his servants and agents from further speaking or publishing the said or any similar words defamatory of the plaintiff.”
It will be observed that the claim as it thus stands did not disclose any cause of action, but this was
saved in my opinion, by the statement of claim which was filed together with the writ and which was
in the following terms:
“1. The plaintiff was on the 30th day of May, 1959, and is still a lawyer practising as a solicitor and barrister, at Kumasi, in the Ashanti Region of Ghana.
2. That the plaintiff was and is also a politician and a Member of Parliament for the Sekyere West electoral district.
3. The defendant is a wholesale-keeper of the United Africa Company (Ghana) Limited, Prison Road, Kumasi in the Ashanti Region.
4. The plaintiff is a tenant and was on the 30th day of May, 1960 a tenant at House Number AA.8, Kwame Nkrumah Road, Kumasi.
5. The defendant is and was at the said date the landlord of the plaintiff at the said house number AA. 8, Kumasi, Kwame Nkrumah Road aforesaid.
6. On or about the 30th day of May, 1960, at house number AA. 8, Kwame Nkrumah Road,
aforesaid the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff to and/or in
the presence and hearing of persons the following words:
(1) ‘You are a thief’.
(2) ‘You are a hopeless lawyer. Se ennye Owusu Afriyie a anka wonnya asem nni.’
(3) ‘You are a hopeless M.P.’
7. By the words ‘You are a thief ‘ the defendant meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment.
8. By the words ‘You are a hopeless lawyer, Se ennye Owusu Afriyie a anka wonnya asem nni’ the
defendant meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff was incompetent and inefficient in
his profession as a lawyer.
9. By the words `You are a hopeless M.P’ the defendant meant and was understood to mean that the
plaintiff was unfit and of no use in his office as Member of Parliament of the Sekyere West
electoral district.
10. The plaintiff will contend at the hearing that all the words mentioned in paragraphs 6 (1), 6 (2)
and 6 (3), are actionable per se.
11. Unless restrained by this honourable court, the defendant will further publish the said or similar
slanders upon the plaintiff.
12. And the plaintiff claims:—
(1) Fifteen thousand pounds (£G 15,000) damages for slander.
(2) An injunction restraining the defendant his servants and agents from further publishing the said or similar slanders upon the plaintiff.”
The statement of defence delivered on behalf of the defendant is as follows:
1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the statement of claim are admitted.
2. The defendant denies that he spoke or published the words set out in paragraph 6 of the
statement of claim either to the persons therein mentioned or at all.
3. In further answer to paragraph 6 the defendant says that it was rather the plaintiff who after a
heated argument engineered by the plaintiff over the plaintiff’s monthly rentals to the defendant
violently abused the defendant and said defendant was a thief because defendant was charging
plaintiff a monthly rent of £G 25.
4. Even if, and this is denied, the defendant spoke and published the words set out in paragraphs
6, 7,.8 and 9 of the statement of claim defendant denies that the said words bore or were
understood to bear any meaning defamatory of the plaintiff.
5. Defendant denies paragraph 10 of the statement of claim and will put the plaintiff to a strict
proof thereof.
6. Defendant denies, paragraph 11 of the statement of claim.
7. Defendant denies that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought or to any relief at all.
8. Save as is hereinbefore expressly or by necessary implications admitted defendant will deny
each and every allegation of facts contained in plaintiff’s statement of claim as if the same has
been set out and traversed seriatim.”
The main issues agreed upon on application for directions are as follows: (a) whether or not the
defendant spoke and published of the plaintiff the words complained of in the paragraph 6 of the
statement of claim and (b) whether or not the words complained of in paragraph 6 of the statement of
claim are defamatory or understood to bear a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff.
The facts are that the plaintiff and defendant who had been very close friends, lost their tempers with
each other and quarrelled. The plaintiff related the circumstances leading to this quarrel as follows:
“On that day I had returned from trek to my house – No. AA.8, where I was tenant to the defendant.
When I got to the step on Verandah leading on to my rooms I found a pool of water on the verandah. I
waded through to my rooms. I found the bedroom soaked with water. My bed was wet and my carpet
was wet, I telephoned to the defendant to come and look at the state in which my rooms were. He came
down from upstairs where he lives and I indicated to him what had happened during the earlier rainfall.
He got annoyed and said I had not paid my rent and saw no reason why he should repair the flat. I told
him that his statement was immaterial. He started on me and said that “You are a thief’, `You are a
hopeless lawyer’, but for Owusu Afriyie you would not have had clients. Your are a thief, he said in
English. You are a hopeless lawyer, he said in English. But he said what follows in Twi : Se ennye
Owusu Afriyie a anka wonya asem nni. He also said :” You are a hopeless M.P.” When he said this the
following persons were present: my brother Kwabena Bonsu and Kwaku Bonsu and defendant’s wife.
These words were uttered to their hearing. I told the defendant to mark very well his words as they were
defamatory and I would consider taking legal action against him. Inspite of the warning he went on.
[p.142] of [1962] 1 GLR 139
The defendant gave this version:
“Then my daughter told me that the lawyer was on the telephone. I picked up the receiver and listened. I
heard plaintiff speaking, saying on the top of his voice: “This is Kwaku Bonsu, you’d better come down
and see. I have got my carpet wet, water on my bed – your house is damaged – you’d better repair it’. I
said `If you, in your opinion, think the house is damaged the only thing to do is to quit’ I asked him what
he wanted me to do – whether he wanted me to pay for his wet carpet. Then he said ‘Yes why not – you
are a bloody fool’. I got annoyed – and he banged down the telephone. Then I got up and went down to
ask why he addressed me in that manner. As soon as I got to the verandah he was standing at the
entrance inside his hall. As soon as he saw me – he shouted – `Come in,!! come in!!’ He was very much angry. He repeated: `Come in, come in, you are a bloody fool.’ Then I said: `You calling me bloody fool
after all these things I have done for you – you are a bloody fool too’. Then he said the Syrian one
staying there was paying £G20 and I was charging him £G25 and therefore I was a bloody thief. Then I
told him ‘You are the first man to abuse me’.”
Now in this case the first point that I must consider is whether or not the words complained of are by
themselves sufficient to support the claim without any averment in the statement of claim defining or
explaining the meaning which the plaintiff assigns to the words complained of. If the words are not
prima facie defamatory of the plaintiff or if they have no meaning at all in ordinary acceptation, then
the plaintiff must explain by means of an innuendo. I have no doubt that if these words were spoken,
then they were spoken of the plaintiff-the evidence does not allow of the words being spoken of
anybody else.
The first set of words complained of are: “You are a thief “. In my opinion the meaning of this phrase
is quite clear and unambiguous. It means that the person referred to is a thief. The evidence – if it is
accepted – is that defendant during the quarrel called plaintiff a thief. The point was conceded by
plaintiff’s counsel – that to call a person in the heat of passion, a thief, without more, may be mere
vulgar abuse and is not defamatory. With this I entirely agree. The second set of offending words are:
“You are a hopeless lawyer. Se ennye Owusu Afriyie a anka wonnya asem nni.” meaning, “You are a
hopeless lawyer, if it had not been for Owusu Afriyie you would have no case” – i.e. no clients.
Unless these words in their natural meaning mean that the plaintiff is incompetent and inefficient in
his profession as a lawyer, then there must be an innuendo. Taking account of the context in which it
was made, the manner and occasion of the publication and the persons to whom it was published I
think that the statement could mean that the plaintiff is inefficient and incompetent, and I accordingly
hold that the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
The last set of words complained of are: “You are a hopeless M.P.” To my mind again the meaning of
these words to any ordinary person is quite plain. It is capable of meaning that the plaintiff is not fit to
be an M.P.
Thus I find all the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, and I will
therefore consider whether they were in fact defamatory of the plaintiff in the particular circumstances
of the case.
The scene that evening after the defendant had been invited by telephone downstairs to the plaintiff’s
flat to examine the damage done to the latter’s property by the rain was variously described by the
parties and their witnesses. The fact that came out quite clearly was that both the plaintiff and the
defendant were highly incensed at each other
[p.143] of [1962] 1 GLR 139
and that they quarrelled heatedly, even to the point of fighting. Some of the tenants in the house had
to come in and separate them. I believe that in those circumstances they abused each other rather
freely, and in the heat of passion. Such words of heat or vulgar abuse have been held not to be
actionable, and I accordingly so hold in this case.
I will also go further and consider another point. The plaintiff in his statement of claim failed to
disclose the identity of the person or persons to whom the defamatory words were spoken. But
evidence was led by his cousin who was at the material time, his driver, to the effect that he heard the
defendant speak the offending words about the plaintiff. Again if counsel concedes that calling the
plaintiff a thief was mere vulgar abuse and therefore not actionable – similarly all the other words used
by the parties about each other must be considered mere vulgar abuse. Counsel wondered whether this
witness should have been asked what he understood the words to mean, but hastily left the matter
there. That, I regret, is an error, for there can be no actionable publication of a libel or slander to
persons who do not understand the words to be defamatory or defamatory of the plaintiff: Sadgrove v.
Hole.[1] I think the plaintiff’s witness who was brought in to prove publication of the slander should also have been asked what he understood the words he heard to mean. He may very well, knowing the
high reputation and integrity of the plaintiff, not have been impressed at all by the words. In fact he
too may have considered them mere vituperation and vulgar abuse. On this point too the plaintiff’s
action must fail.
Lastly I come to the facts. Were these words spoken? According to the plaintiff and his witness they
were spoken. According to the defendant and his three witnesses those were not the words used.
They all agreed that there was a quarrel. From their evidence there is nothing to discredit either the
plaintiff or the defendant. My own view is that they were so engrossed in their quarrel that they
cannot really comprehend the actual words used by either party. I therefore looked for corroboration
of their stories from their various witnesses. And of the witnesses I was more impressed with
Ashaley’s evidence than that of Kwabena Bonsu. Kwabena Bonsu said he was in the kitchen at the
start of the quarrel when he came to cool down his master. But his master said he was cleaning up the
rooms that had been soaked with rain water. I agree with the plaintiff and say that it is more probable
that Kwabena Bonsu was cleaning up the water and not standing by or near his master trying to
separate the parties. In those circumstances I would say that it is less probable that he would hear the
exact words used in the quarrel which according to him lasted about half an hour. I think the scales
weigh in favour of the defence on the facts too, namely, that the words complained of were not the
words used by the defendant. For this reason too the claim must fail.
I must observe before I conclude that if I had found for the plaintiff, I would have considered two
circumstances in mitigation of damages. These facts were volunteered by the plaintiff. He said that
barely one month after the alleged slander he was promoted from the position of an ordinary M.P. to
that of a Ministerial Secretary. Even now in addition to this post which he has held ever since, I take
judicial notice of the fact that he has been appointed Chief of Protocol. This gentleman cannot
[p.144] of [1962] 1 GLR 139
have been affected by the alleged slander. Secondly, the plaintiff admitted that the wife of the
defendant attempted to apologise to him. That too is a mitigating circumstance.
I mention this only as a hint that in all the circumstances since no discredit has befallen the plaintiff from this incident, negotiations may be started to restore the erstwhile very amicable-almost family-
relations that existed between the parties.
In the result, the plaintiff’s claim cannot succeed and is dismissed. There will be judgment for the
defendant with costs assessed at 30 guineas inclusive of counsel’s costs.
DECISION
Action dismissed.
