SYLVIA ASANA OWU v. 3G CONSULT & HALIFAX ANSAH-ADDO
March 1, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Media Law
March 1, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court ruling by His Lordship Justice Kweku T. Ackaaah-Boafo addresses a plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of a defence in a defamation suit against The Publisher newspaper and its editor. The April 2018 article alleged fraud and dishonesty by the plaintiff, then Deputy CEO of the Ghana Shippers Authority, in signing a contract. Relying on Order 11 Rule 18(1)(a) of C.I. 47, the plaintiff argued twelve defence paragraphs were bare or evasive denials lacking particulars required by Order 11 Rule 12 and Order 57 Rule 3. The court emphasized strike-out powers must be exercised sparingly and without admitting evidence, and that defamation defences require particulars of truth or fair comment. Applying these standards, it struck out paragraphs 6, 11, 14 and 16 as non-compliant, allowed the rest to stand for trial, and awarded GH₵1,500 costs to the plaintiff.
RULING
i. Introduction/Overview of Facts:
[1] The Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons together with the Statement of Claim was filed on April 26, 2018. The Court entered Interlocutory Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff on July 16, 2018 because the Defendants failed to file their Statement of Defence after an Appearance was entered by their lawyer – Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin. Further to an application to set aside the default judgment the Court granted the Defendants leave to file their statement of Defence out of time on December 6, 2018. Consequently, the Statement of Defence was filed on December 18, 2018.
[2] The essence of the Plaintiff’s claim of defamation is that the 2nd Defendant who is the editor of a newspaper known as “The Publisher” owned or published by the 1st Defendant by a publication on Wednesday 11th to Thursday, 12th April 2018 published or caused to be published a story concerning the Plaintiff of statements alleging fraud and dishonesty on her part in signing a contract in her official capacity as the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Shippers Council. The Plaintiff contends that the statements under the headline; “STINKING DEAL FOR GHANA…AS DEPUTY ASANA SNUBS BOSS & SIGNS DEAL” constitute defamation. The force of the allegations, and their tenor, according to the Plaintiff are understood to mean that she abused and misused her official position and therefore unfit and not deserving of the trust and confidence reposed in her by her employers, the Ghana Shippers Authority.
[3] Following the filing of the Defendants’ 19 paragraph Statement of Defence the Plaintiff through her Counsel has filed the instant Notice of Motion pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1) (a) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004, C.I. 47 praying this Court for an order striking out certain paragraphs, specifically paragraphs 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,16, 17 and 18 of the joint Statement of Defence of the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents on the grounds that they “discloses no reasonable defence”.
ii. Arguments in favour of the Application:
[4] Arguing the motion, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, Ms. Yinsonti Tindana holding the brief of Mr. Thaddeus Sory first prayed the Court to strike out the paragraphs listed in the motion paper on the grounds that they disclose no reasonable defence pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18
(1)(a). Explaining further, Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned paragraphs are twelve (12) in total o