ROBERT SARFO-MENSAH VS ANAS AREMEYAW ANAS AND ANOTHER

The Plaintiff commenced the instant action by a writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim filed on 10th October, 2018. Per the amended writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 10th April, 2019, the Plaintiff seeks against the Defendants the following reliefs: a. A declaration that the recording and publication of the 23-minute bare video clip depicting the Plaintiff collecting or receiving money from an unknown and/or identified person, without his knowledge, consent and authority, is a gross violation of the fundamental human right of the Plaintiff’s privacy.

b. A declaration that commercially publishing the said video without first hearing the Plaintiff’s side of the story amounts to a fundamental breach of his right to be heard.

c. An order directed at the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein to remove or otherwise, retract the said video from circulation on the media.

d. Damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants for defamation.

e. Any other order or orders that the Court may deem fit.

The Defendants’ reaction, upon entering conditional appearance, was to seek to have the suit struck out under Order 11 Rule 18 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) but same failed on grounds of procedure.

The Defendants this time round, by the instant application, seek to have the suit dismissed again under Order 11 Rule 18 (1) (d) of C. I. 47 and also under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

In so far as the conditional appearance entered by the Defendants has presently ripened into an unconditional appearance, per Order 9 Rule 7 (2) of C. I. 47, the instant application is well founded pursuant to same.

GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION The plaint of the Applicants is that the writ of summons and statement of claim be struck out on the ground that the action in substance is a human rights action, hence same ought not to have been commenced by a writ of summons but by an application.

Further, the Defendants ground the application on the claim that the action is one of defamation and yet the Plaintiff has failed to indorse the particulars of the defamatory statement on the writ of summons (contrary to Order 57 Rule 3 of C. I. 47) and in their view that failure renders the writ invalid.

The next beef of the Defendants is that contrary to the mandatory requirement of Order 2 Rule (3) (2) of C. I. 47, the Plaintiff’s residential address is not stated on the writ of summons and finally that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requir