PROFESSOR E. O. ADEKOLU JOHN v. UNIVERSITY FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES TAMALE

JONES DOTSE JSC:

On the 19th day of March, 2014, this Court delivered judgment in this appeal wherein the appeal lodged by the Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant, hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff against the decision of the Court of Appeal, dated 29th June, 2012, was allowed in part.

By that judgment, the Defendants/Respondents/Respondents hereafter referred to as Defendants were ordered to pay to the plaintiff the following:

a. GH¢5,000.00 damages for wrongful termination

b. GH¢20,000.00 damages for defamation

c. GH¢2,000.00 as costs to the Plaintiff

We now proceed to give our reasons for that judgment.

Thomas Paine, in 1787 in one of his writings to “The opposers of the Bank” wrote thus:-

“An insinuation, which a man who makes it does not believe himself, is equal to lying. It is the cowardice of lying. It unites the barest part of that vice with the meanest of all others. An open liar is a highwayman in his profession, but an insinuating liar is a thief skulking in the night.”

We have decided to preface our judgment in this case by reference to the above words of Thomas Paine because of the special circumstances of this case which border on how the head of administration of one of the country’s public universities threw caution to the winds in composing the contents of an official memorandum to a senior member of the University. The contents of the memorandum have not and could not be sustained and have been proven to have been published falsely and with malice.

FACTS

The plaintiff was at all material times that he commenced this action in the High Court, Tamale, a Professor of Medicine and Head of the Department of Community Medicine of the University For Development Studies, who are the 1st Defendants/ Respondents/ Respondents, hereafter referred to as the Defendants.

The Plaintiff’s case is simple. He contended that he was offered a contract appointment as a Professor in the Department of Community Medicine with effect from June 2005 to July 2009. He however contended that, by a further memorandum from the office of the Vice-Chancellor dated 17th December 2007 his appointment as Head of Department was extended from 1st January 2008 to 31st August, 2009.

However, in a letter dated 13th March, 2009 signed by the 2nd Defendant, Respondent/Respondent hereafter 2nd Defendant purporting to be writing for and on behalf of the University Council informed the Plaintiff that his contract will not be renewed when it expires.

The Plaintiff however