PAUL OLIVER v. SAMUEL K. BOATENG & ANOTHER

FACTS

The facts which give rise to this appeal are as follows: The Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) is a British national who came to Ghana in 1995 and engaged as a consultant at Ananse Computer Systems Limited, a computer firm based in Accra.

The Plaintiff while working at Ananse Computer Systems Ltd. developed an accounting based software which he later upgraded to a rural banking software. Same was marketed by Ananse Computer Systems Ltd. This was the time the 1st Defendant an ex-banker with the Barclays Bank, joined Ananse Computer Systems, with the 2nd Defendant also joining later as one with some knowledge of computer programming.

The Plaintiff and Defendants later left the Ananse Computer Systems Ltd. The parties worked in a new company called BSL System founded by 1st Defendant. The subsequent version of the rural bank software was upgraded to the software christened the rural banker and e-finance. This two-in-one software became so popular with rural banks nationwide that most rural banks and other end users signed on to them. The Plaintiff had gone back to the U.K.

An arrangement was made wherein the Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as Defendants) who were marketing the two softwares transferred what was termed licence fees and same paid into the account of the Plaintiff in the United Kingdom by means of invoices generated by the Plaintiff. That was between April 2005 and March 2011. The source code and the activation code of the software were with the Plaintiff and the server.

Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants illegally cracked the source code and the activation code of the rural bankers and e-finance software. They refused to pay the licence fees due him. The Plaintiff wrote a letter after a verbal discussion with the Defendants to acknowledge the fact of his sole authorship of the software if they fail he would institute legal action against Defendants to vindicate his rights. This is because he had formally withdrawn the dealership rights from Defendants.

Plaintiff said the Defendants obtained without permission of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s source code and removed the legitimate anti-privacy protection from his software and installed a cracked copy of the software. The Defendants were illegally marketing and distributing the said software without recourse to Plaintiff.

Upon refusing to heed to the Plaintiff’s letter, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants at the court below claiming the followin