2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Adinyira JSC, dismissed Google Ghanas appeal in a defamation case brought by George Agyemang Sarpong against Google Ghana and Google Inc. LLC concerning material on www.google.com.gh. Sarpong sought expungement of alleged defamatory publications, an apology, damages, and injunctions. Google Ghana argued it was not the proper party and sought to be struck out; the High Court refused and joined Google Inc., which acknowledged ownership of the search engine. The Court of Appeal also refused to strike out Google Ghana. On further appeal, the 1st Defendants grounds were consolidated into five issues, but the Supreme Court confined itself to whether Google Ghanas presence was necessary. Finding no admissions by Sarpong regarding the corporate relationship, and emphasizing the burden-of-proof rules under the Evidence Act, the Court endorsed the Court of Appeals reasoning and held that whether Google Ghana could comply with the reliefs must be determined at trial. The appeal, including the challenge to GH25,000 costs, was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC:-
By an amended writ of summons and statement of claim, George Agyemang Sarpong, the Plaintiff/ Respondent/ Respondent [Plaintiff] commenced an action seeking jointly and severally reliefs against Google Ghana, as 1st Defendant/ Appellant/ Appellant [1st Defendant] and Google Inc. LLC as the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants had published defamatory material against him on www.google.com.gh (the ‘search engine”). Consequently, 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 alleged defamatory publications and statements regarding the Plaintiff; an undertaking not to make, 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 and perpetual injunction from repeating similar actions.
The 1st Defendant who was at first sued alone, contending it was not the proper party to be sued, sought to have his name struck out of the suit. The learned judge Lovelace- Johnson, J.A. sitting as an additional High Court Judge refused the application and went ahead to join the 2nd Defendant which was alleged to be the owner of the search engine.
The 2nd Defendant acknowledged in his statement of defence that it was the owner of the search engine. It was upon that the 1st Defendant applied again to the High Court differently constituted to strike out its name from the suit contending it was not the proper person to be sued. The High Court refused the application relying on the prior ruling.
The 1st Defendant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal with the same request; and being dissatisfied has filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on 13 grounds.
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
For the sake of brevity we would not be set out the 13 grounds of appeal in extenso, as Counsel for the 1st Defendant in his statement of case, had merged the 13 grounds of appeal into five issues as follows:
a. Whether the judgment of the Court of Appeal is against the weight of evidence on record.
b. Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted and misapplied the Costeja decision to the [Plaintiff’s] action against the [1st Defendant].
c. Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Appellant is a necessary party to the action because of its business relationship with the 2nd Defendant.