MICHAEL TETTEH ANGUAH v. CENTRE FOR PLANT MEDICINE RESEARCH, GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LIMITED & THE EDITOR, GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Media Law
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This defamation suit arose after the Centre for Plant Medicine Research (CPMR) caused a disclaimer to be published in the Daily Graphic on 19 January 2015, showing Mr. Anguah’s photograph with two other ex-employees and stating they were either dismissed or had their appointments terminated for offences including fraud, theft, conflict of interest, and gross misconduct, and warning the public not to deal with them. Anguah’s employment had been terminated in 2012 for misconduct and conflict of interest, not theft or fraud, and he demanded a retraction, apology, and compensation. CPMR said it published to protect its integrity and stop anonymous petitions; the newspaper believed the content to be true. Applying defamation principles and the Evidence Act’s burden of proof, the court held the disclaimer did not identify Anguah as a thief or fraudster, found no evidence of reputational harm, and dismissed the claim with no order as to costs, while cautioning the defendants about ambiguous wording.
JUDGMENT
[A] Introduction:
[1] It is indeed true that the balance between free speech and protection of reputation is an uneasy one. When the Daily Graphic accepted to publish a disclaimer submitted by the Plant and Medicine Research, the 1st Defendant herein in or about January 2015, little did it know that it was setting in motion a chain of events which would lead to a lawyer’s letter for retraction, an apology and a demand for compensation and ultimately a defamation lawsuit for a claim in damages. This is an action for defamation by a former employee of the 1st Defendant Research Centre at Akropong against the Defendants herein for damages and injunction among others.
[B] The Action
[2] By a writ of summons filed on the 29th day of May, 2015 the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants the following reliefs:
I) A declaration that the publication by the Defendants in the Daily Graphic of Monday 19th January 2015 is defamatory of the Plaintiff.
II) General Damages for libel contained in the publication of the Daily Graphic of Monday 19th January 2015.
III) An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants whether by themselves, agents, privies or any of them or otherwise howsoever described from publishing and/or causing to be published similar statements defamatory of the Plaintiff.
IV) An order directed at the Defendants to retract the defamatory Disclaimer complained of and to render an apology through the same medium with similar prominence to the Plaintiff.
V) An order directed at the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiffs Costs including legal fees and the cost of this action.
VI) Any further reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit.
[3] An appearance was entered and later statement of defence filed jointly by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and separately by the 1st defendant after service of the writ and statement of claim. The Plaintiff did not file a reply.
[C] Brief Facts
[4] The facts of the case are that the Plaintiff who is a 59 years old married man with four children, an elder of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana at Akropong in the Eastern Region and presently a farmer says he was defamed by the Defendants after the 1st Defendant caused to be published a disclaimer in the 2nd Defendant’s newspaper on January 19, 2015. The Plaintiff worked with the 1st Defendant Research Centre from November 16, 1987 until his employment was terminated on January 9, 2012. Before launching this litigation, the Plaintiff's solic