George Agyemang Sarpong v. Google Ghana and 1 Ors
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Kusi-Appiah, J.A. (Presiding)
- Larbi (Mrs.), J.A.
- Agyemang (Mrs.), J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Corporate Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The first defendant/appellant appealed against a High Court ruling that refused to strike out its name from a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent who alleged defamation through publications on a Google search engine. The appellant argued that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue and that the claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. Additionally, the appellant contended that it was not a proper party to the suit. However, the appeal was dismissed, with the court determining that the claim against both defendants was maintainable. The plaintiff’s capacity to sue and the sufficiency of the cause of action were upheld, confirming that the trial should proceed to determine the issues at hand.
AGYEMANG JA: In this appeal against the judgment of the High Court (Fast Track Division), Accra, delivered on the 30th of July 2014, the first defendant/ appellant (hereafter described alternately as the appellant, or the first defendant), seeks the following: 1. An order setting aside the entire ruling; 2. A declaration that the plaintiff/respondent does not have capacity to institute the action against the first defendant/appellant; 3. A declaration that the plaintiff/respondent has not disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the first defendant/appellant; 4. A declaration that the first defendant is not a proper party to the suit; 5. An order directed at the High court to strike out the name of the first defendant/appellant from the suit.
These are the matters antecedent to the appeal.
By an amended writ of summons, the plaintiff/respondent herein (referred to hereafter alternately as the respondent, or the plaintiff), commenced an action seeking joint and several reliefs against the appellant herein as first defendant, and another: the second defendant Google Inc. LLC. The plaintiff sought inter alia, an order directed at the defendants to expunge from their search engine and any related records and archives, all the defamatory publications and statements regarding the plaintiff; an undertaking not to publish or communicate any other untrue and damaging statements about the plaintiff; an order to render and publish an agreed apology to the plaintiff; as well as, damages.
Before the issuance of the amended writ and statement of claim, the plaintiff had brought suit against the first defendant alone.
The first defendant applied to have its name struck out as having been improperly made a party to the suit, under Order 4 R 5 (2)(b) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules CI 47. In a ruling against the application, The Honourable Lovelace-Johnson JA(sitting as an Additional Judge of the High Court), found that issues raised by the response to the application including: whether the first defendant was the alter ego of Google Inc. based in USA which had been cited as the proper person to sue, had to be determined after a hearing.
She therefore dismissed the application and went ahead to make an order joining the said Google Inc. , cited as the owner and operator of the search engine that had produced the results the subject of the plaintiff’s complaint, as second defendant.
Thus was the second defendant brought into the suit by the amended proce