JUDGEMENT

KWOFIE JSC:

My lords, this appeal principally deals with the question of when the defence of fair comment which is a complete defence to a defamation suit is available to a publisher. Whereas the plaintiff/appellant/appellant contends that the defence of fair comment is not available to the defendants as determined by the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal, the defendants/respondents/respondents agree with the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal that the defence of fair comment is available to them and was correctly applied by both lower courts.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kumasi delivered on the 21st of December, 2023 wherein the Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff/appellant/appellant and upheld the defence of fair comment pleaded by the defendants/respondents/respondents.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal the plaintiff/appellant/appellant has further appealed to this court by a Notice of Appeal filed on 02-02-2024 on the following grounds:

a)That part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the trial court which upheld the defence of fair comment pleaded by the defendant/appellant/appellant is against the weight of evidence adduced by the plaintiff/appellant/appellant during the trial.

b)That the Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that the statement attributable to the 1st defendant/Respondent/respondent complained of by the plaintiff/appellant/appellant constituted a defence of fair comment.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

1.That the Court Of Appeal erred when it held that the Twi interpretation given by the defendant/respondent/respondents was not out of malice, but a true reflection of what the statement attributed to honorable Inusah Fuseini was

2.That the Court of Appeal erred when it held that because the statement made by the defendant/respondents/respondents was made about people who were contesting the former president Mahama as flag bearer of the NDC, it was thus a matter of public interest, as the public will be concerned about the calibre of people who would want to lead the country.

3.The Court of Appeal erred when it held that because the statement made by the defendants/respondents/respondents assuming it was a statement of fact was made during the height of political activities, no reasonable person would take it seriously having regard to the prevailing circumstances.