SOWAH J.
The main points argued in this appeal are points of law. Counsel however submitted that in the case of the third appellant there was no evidence upon which she could be found liable for uttering the slanderous words complained of.
I propose to deal firstly with the argument of law. Counsel has submitted that the law of slander as known to customary law does not give damages as its relief or remedy to the person slandered. The only remedy that an aggrieved person can obtain is to get the court to impose a small fine which may be given to him by way of compensation and further the court may order the slanderer to recant, that is to say:
“... make him walk through the town or village carrying a heavy stone in front of an officer of the Court, who, at convenient halting-places, beats a gong; the guilty slanderer is compelled to recant his base falsehoods, and to confess his disgraceful behaviour, amid the sneers and jeers of the multitude.”
See Sarbah, Fanti Customary Laws (2nd ed.)…