IBRAHIM 

MAHAMA
 (PLAINTIFF)                                         

vs
ERNEST  OWUSU BEMPAH  & ANO.
  ( DEFENDANTS)   

[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]

SUIT NO.: GJ/469/2018                                                   DATE:  18TH OCTOBER, 2019

COUNSEL:
REINDORF TWUMASI ANKRAH FOR PLAINTIFF.
GARY NIMAKO MARFO FOR THE 1 DEFENDANT.         
DICKSON TWENEBOAH-KOD UAH FOR THE 2 DEFENDANT.
CORAM:      
LADYSHIP  JUSTICE GEORGINA  MENSAH-DATSA
 
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs:

a.      A declaration that the statement that"...because krono na w'abo, krono

na w'abo" to wit 'he (plaintiff) has stolen' made of him by the
1  defendant, which is set out in paragraph 14 of the Statement of Claim, on
the 3 of March, 2018 is defamatory;
b.       An order of injunction restraining the defendants from publishing the same
or similar defamatory statements about the plaintiff;
c.      An order directed at the 1 defendant, compelling him to publish in the
Daily Graphic and on UTV an unqualified  apology  to the plaintiff and  a
retraction of the said statements with the same prominence and passion  as 
the defamatory statement;
d.     An order compelling 2defendant to remove from its archives, be it
electronic or of whatever form, the said defamatory statement;
e.      Punitive/exemplary damages  of Two Million Ghana Cedis for defamation.
f.        Costs including legal fees;
g.      Any other orders this Honourable court may deem fit.

The plaintiff is  a Ghanaian resident  in Ghana and carries on business  in Ghana and 

across Africa.
The  1  defendant is  the  Communication  Director  of  the  Ghana  National  Gas Com
pany,  New Patriotic Party (NPP) government communication team member and a
regular panelist on some radio and television politically related programmes
or shows.
The 2nd  defendant, Despite Group of Companies Limited, is the owner and
operator of a private commercial television broadcaster in Ghana known as
United Television Ghana (UTV Ghana).
The plaintiff filed
witness statements with exhibits attached but never appeared in court and did
not testify. Two witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiff.
Rufai Mohammed Rafik (PWl) and Cox Tamakloe (PW2).

The 1st defendant testified and did not call any witness.

The 2nd defendant called only one witness, Prince Obimpeh (DW1) to give

evidence on its behalf.
The plaintiff's case is that 2 defendant runs and broadcasts a  very popular
and widely patronized morning talk show dubbed "Adekye Nsroma" a show
which is broadcast live. According to the plaintiff, because the said talk show is
popular and has a huge audience, utterances or statements made thereon circulate
rapidly and widely reaching a substantial number of people across the world
within minutes. The plaintiff contends that on or about the y d March, 2018, the
1 defendant appeared as a panelist on UTV Ghana in respect of the said morning
talk show and during the course of the said programme, deliberately and falsely
spoke and published of the plaintiff in the Akan language as follows " ... because
krono na w'abo, krono na w'abo" to wit 'he (plaintiff) has stolen'. The plaintiff
asserts that the
defamatory statements made by the defendant of him are palpable untruths made 
without justification and was actuated by the l defendant's gross malice, disdain
and ill-will towards  the plaintiff.   According to the plaintiff, although the
2 defendant knew that the said publication was false and defamatory, it
nonetheless provided the 1 defendant with the medium through which the
1 defendant repeatedly published the false and defamatory statements of  him
without  an attempt  to get the  1 defendant to apologize or retract the said
defamatory statements nor did it issue a disclaimer in respect of those defamatory
statements. The plaintiff stated that the 2 defendant subsequently republished a
recorded video of the said morning's programme on
its online YouTube channel. The plaintiff claimed  the 2 defendant has not apolog
ized to him and that even if there is an apology it goes to mitigation of damages to
be awarded and does not absorb or exonerate the 2nd defendant from liability.

The plaintiff contends that the natural and ordinary and/or innuendo meaning of
the statements complained of which were published widely is that, the plaintiff
has engaged in stealing. He asserts that within the context, the statement made by
the 1st defendant is understood to mean that, the plaintiff’s wealth are proceeds
from stealing. He avers that the said statement  imputes that he has committed the
offence of stealing an imputation  which is an obvious falsehood. The
plaintiff  asserts that as a result of the defamatory publication, his character, pride,
self-respect, credit and reputation has been tarnished  and he has been reduced in
his estimation  in the eyes of right thinking members of the society.

The 1 defendant's case is that he made the said statement in a fit of anger in
the heat of arguments between him and the National Democratic Congress
(NDC) panelist on the talk show. According to him the said statement made in
passing was provoked by the NDC panelist who is a well-known affiliate of the
plaintiffs earlier statement that he is not worthy to clean the shoes of the plaintiff.
He asserted that the utterance he made concerning the plaintiff in the course of
heated arguments was an impulsive statement borne out of anger generated by
the said derogatory remarks by the said NDC panelist. He contended that the
context of the statement cannot make it defamatory and he has nothing personal
against the plaintiff. He asserted that the said statement has not occasioned the
plaintiff any damage. The 1st defendant asserted that the statement prompting the
plaintiff to institute this action is one of the statements that characterizes the usual
political debates especially between the
NPP which the 1 defendant belongs and the NDC which the plaintiff belongs
or which at least he is a well-known sympathizer.
The 2 defendant's case is that the pt defendant used the expression "krono
na w'abo" during a heated debate during which the 1 defendant and the other
panelist, traded accusations against each other on the said programme. It asserted
that the
said debate was so heated that its host of the programme could hardly hear to wh
om the said expression was referred to by the 1 defendant. It stated that its
programmes are streamed live on the internet and that the
said video on YouTube is not a republication of the programme. The 2 defendant
contended that upon realizing the said connection of the expression to plaintiff, it
caused its host to apologise to
the plaintiff on the same platform upon which the matter
was published and has since furnished the plaintiff a recorded copy of the said
apology. The 2 defendant asserted that having apologized publicly to the plaintiff,
notwithstanding the fact that it does not admit any liability, it is pointless for the
plaintiff to still maintain it as a defendant in this suit.
The issues set down for trial by the plaintiffs against the defendants are as follows:

1.          Whether or not the 1st defendant made/published of the plaintiff the

statement referred to in paragraph 14 of the plaintiffs Statement of Claim.
 2.          Whether or not the statement made by the 1 defendant and referred to
in paragraph 14 of the Statement  of Claim is defamatory  of the plaintiff.
3.           Whether or not the 2nd defendant afforded the 1 defendant with an
avenue to publish the statement complained of.
4.          Whether or not the 2 defendant republished the statements made by the
1 defendant and referred to in paragraph 14 of the Statement of Claim on
its YouTube portal.
5.           Whether  or not the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.
6.            Any other issue(s) arising out of the pleadings or
evidence. The 1 defendant  filed the following additional issues
:
1.     Whether or not the words uttered by the 1 defendant in the fit of anger
during a heated argument can ground an action in defamation.
2.     Whether or not the statement made by the 1 defendant given its context
can be said to be defamatory.
All counsel for the parties herein filed an address.

With respect to the issue of whether or not the 1 defendant made/published of

the plaintiff the statement referred to in paragraph 14 of the plaintiffs Statement
of Claim, PWl, PW2, DW1 and the 1 defendant himself confirmed that he did as
seen in the video, exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 was tendered by counsel for the
1 defendant through PW2.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted in his written address that from
the pleadings and evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the publication/
statement complained  of  by the plaintiff was made by the 1 defendant as it was 
admitted  by the defendants. He stated that having admitted to making the
statement, no further evidence is required to prove same.

This issue is not in doubt so I find as a fact that the 1 defendant made/published
of the plaintiff the statement referred to in paragraph 14 of the plaintiffs
Statement of Claim.

Regarding the issue of whether or not the statement made by the 1 defendant
and referred to in paragraph 14 of the Statement of Claim is defamatory of the
plaintiff, the plaintiffs case that the statement complained of  have been generally
understood by right thinking members of the society to mean that he is dishonest
in his personal and business dealings and that the source of his wealth is criminal
activity (stealing) and that he built his wealth through stealing.

PWl said he is the plaintiffs Personal Assistant. He stated that on or about

4/3/2018, his attention was drawn by several telephone calls from friends and
colleagues to the said statement by the 1 defendant so he went on the internet and
saw the said programme on the 2 defendant's YouTube channel or platform.
According to PWl, as a Personal Assistant to the plaintiff and based on his
knowledge of the plaintiffs works, he was incensed by the said statement as there
was no justification for it. He asserted that he went to inform the plaintiff about
the said statement but when he got there he had already heard about it because
many people called him to ask him about it. PWl  said the plaintiff asked him the
get the video on the said statement  and he did. PWl contended that after the
plaintiff watched the video, he PWl could see that the plaintiff became visibly
unhappy and subsequently instructed him to get in touch with his lawyers for the
action to be taken. PWl stated that he found the  said statement to be very
damaging of the plaintiff and fails to understand why the 1 defendant will
deliberately defame the plaintiff in that manner.

PW2 stated that he is a media
consultant and the plaintiff is his cousin. He said he watched the video of the said
programme on YouTube and by the said statement, he understood the
1 defendant to be saying that the plaintiff acquired his wealth and success
through the crime of stealing. According to PW2, many people who
left comments in the comment section of the YouTube video at the time ridiculed
the plaintiff and some hurled insults at him. He asserted that the said comments
by the viewers affected  negatively  the estimation  he had for the plaintiff and he 
called him to tell him. PW2 contended that he told the plaintiff that the said
statement
and comments were damaging to his reputation and business and the plaintiff tol
d him that several people have expressed similar concern about the video so he w
ill take the necessary legal action after advice from his lawyers. Under cross-
examination by counsel for the 2 defendant, PW2 said he first watched the video
through WhatsApp before later on YouTube.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff, DWl agreed that the
said statement by the 1 defendant
of the plaintiff is one that affects reputation and the perception the viewers of the
2 defendant would have of the plaintiff. DWI agreed that such a statement will
mean that the plaintiff is a thief and a criminal who
has made his wealth through stealing.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it is well established that

words/ statements uttered to impute crime or any indictable offence, among othe
rs against a person are defamatory and actionable per se if it is found out that
those statements are false as held in Serwah v. Sefa [1984-86] 2 GLR 390. He
stated that in this case, the 1 defendant published of the plaintiff the said words
which imputes that the plaintiff has obtained his wealth through the commission
of the crime of stealing. Counsel said it is not in dispute that stealing is an offence
in Ghana and to impute that a person of the plaintiffs caliber has committed the
crime of stealing which is false, in no uncertain terms amounts to defamation. He
 asserted that the words as uttered by the 1 defendant in reference to the plaintiff,
are defamatory and made with intent to defame the plaintiff. He emphasized that
the 1 defendant could not substantiate the allegations and has since not been able
to do so and admitted under cross-examination that the words he uttered were
not true. He contended that
the words by the 1 defendant about the plaintiff, in our Ghanaian and African sett
ing were meant to ridicule him and expose him to hatred, contempt and make
him appear worthless before his peers and other right thinking persons. He
submitted that the plaintiff has been able to successfully establish the essential
elements required
to found an action in defamation as stated in the Supreme Court case of Mrs. Abe
na Pokuaa Ackah v. Agricultural Development Bank (unreported) Civil
Appeal No. J4/31/2014, delivered on 19/12/2017 as follows:

1.      That the words were defamatory,
2.      That the words  are referable to the claimant, or plaintiff,
3.      That the words were published (to at least one person other than
the claimant) by the defendant.

Learned counsel for the 1 defendant submitted in his written address  that

to establish the tort of defamation, a plaintiff is required to prove
the  following essential elements failure of which an action shall fail:

1.     That  the  communication  or  the  words  spoken  is  capable  of  a  defamat
ory    meanmg.
2.     That the words were actually defamatory.
3.     That the statement was made in reference to the plaintiff.
4.     That the statement  was published  or made known to some other person o
ther than the person to whom it is written or spoken.

Learned counsel for the 1 defendant cited Abena Pokuaa Ackah v.

Agricultural Development Bank supra and submitted that even though words
may be capable of defamatory meaning, the authorities suggest that once they
were spoken in the heat of passion, same could not be held to be defamatory. He
asserted that words which are not uttered in the normal conversation but uttered
in the heat of passion are not actionable. He cited Bonsu v. Forson [1964] GLR
45 and submitted that even though the words may be capable of defamatory
meaning, if the 1 defendant is able to establish by the evidence that the words
spoken by him as a panelist on the said talk show were uttered in the heat of
passion, same shall not be actionable and the plaintiff's action ought to fail.
Counsel claimed that the cases make no qualification to the effect that the words
ought to have been spoken directly to the person to whom it refers.
It must be stated that in the Bonsu v. Forson case cited by learned counsel for th
e 1 defendant, it was both the plaintiff and defendant therein who were
highly incensed at each other, quarreled heatedly even to the point of fighting
who exchanged words and it was held that such words of heat or vulgar abuse is
not actionable. That case is distinguishable from the situation in this matter where 
the plaintiff was not present at the programme, not the subject of discussion and
did not provoke the 1 defendant.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff, the 1 defendant stated that
the statement he made of the plaintiff for which he is in court is not true.
From the analysis of the totality of the evidence adduced, all the elements needed
to establish the tort of defamation as listed in this judgment have been proven in
this matter. I therefore find as a fact that the statement made by the 1 defendant
and referred to in paragraph 14 of the Statement  of Claim of the plaintiff  is
defamatory of the plaintiff.

Concerning the issue of whether or not the 2 defendant afforded the

1 defendant with an avenue to publish the statement complained of, the
2 defendant admits that it was
on their programme that the 1 defendant made the said statement.
PWl gave evidence that the 2nd defendant looked on without taking any action
when the 1st  defendant made the said defamatory statement about the plaintiff.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the 2 defendant, PW2 contended that

the said statements were made by the 1 defendant on a platform provided by the
2 defendant. He said the 2 defendant did not make the statement but was an
enabler and a vehicle used to convey the statement. PW2 stated that he was
informed that the 2nd defendant made an apology to the plaintiff on live
television the week following the publication. He asserted that the said apology
does not negate the fact that millions of people all over the world would have had
access to the
publication, some would have copied the publication which will still be in circula
tion and a lot of damage that had been caused will be irreversible by the time the
publication is taken out.

Prince Obimpeh (DWI) gave evidence that he is a staff of the 2 defendant

and currently the producer of the "Adekye Nsroma" show on United
Television. He asserted that due to the partisan nature of the programme,
sometimes the discussions become passionate , and the discussants during those
moments turn to name-calling, casting innuendoes etc. He said on the day in
question, the discussion was between the 1 defendant who represented the NPP
and one other who represented the NDC. According to DWI in the course of the
programme, the discussion became heated, such that one could hardly hear what
was being said by the discussants so it
was difficult to hear who the expression "krononawabo" was attributed to. He co
 ntended that it is the practice of the 2 defendant to do a review of its shows,
and during the review, it was realized that the expression was loosely used in
association with the plaintiff. DWI  asserted that during the next show, the 2 defe
ndant caused the host of the show to render an apology, particularly to the
plaintiff and that the apology was given prominence over and above the
expression complained about by the plaintiff which was obfuscated by the rowdy
nature of the discussion. According to DWI, a copy of the recorded apology was
given to one Sammy Gyamfi, an associate of the plaintiff for onward viewing by
him. DWI asserted that the 2nd defendant is willing and able to give the plaintiff
a further apology if same is required again. Under cross-
examination by counsel for the plaintiff, DWI said the 2nd defendant has an
editorial policy in place and by it persons invited as panelists on any of its
television programmes are not at liberty to say whatever they want.
DWI admitted that he did not tender a copy of the apology he claimed the
2nd defendant had rendered to the plaintiff. DWI insisted that they rendered
an apology immediately their attention was drawn to the law suit filed by the
plaintiff and subsequently made a copy and made it available to an associate of
the plaintiff Sammy Gyamfi. During cross-examination by counsel for the
plaintiff, DWI admitted that in the video contained in exhibit I which is attached
to the pt defendant's witness statement, the 1 defendant after making several
allegations against the plaintiff and other persons was asked by the other panelist
to provide evidence. He admitted that from exhibit 1, the other panelist called on
the host of the show to compel the 1 defendant to substantiate his allegation on
the show. He also admitted that from exhibit 1, at no point in time did the host of
the programme call upon the 1 defendant to substantiate his allegation against
the plaintiff or to even get the 1 defendant  to retract the said statement.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff, DWI agreed that a video
can only be uploaded after the video is done or after the programme has ended.
DWI agreed that the 2 defendant has a very large viewership on television and
YouTube. He admitted that the said apology he claimed the 2 defendant rendered
to the plaintiff is not on their YouTube channel. During cross-examination by
counsel for the 2 defendant, DWI said as producer of Adekye Nsroma programme
he was in the same arena with the panelists and the host and watched it whilst it
was ongoing live and not from the screen. DWI confirmed that the panelists on
the said programme were the I defendant and the other Asafo Agyei a
representative of the NDC political party. DWI said he heard the I defendant
threaten the host of the show that if he failed to restrain the NDC panelist he was
going to walk out of the studio.
 
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the evidence on record
establishes that;
 a.     The 1st defendant was invited by the 2 defendant to the programme on 
which the statement was made.
b.     In the course of the programme and when the 1 defendant made the wild
allegations against persons including the plaintiff, the 2 defendant did
not call the 1 defendant to order.
c.     The 2nd  defendant  subsequently  uploaded the programme  on its YouTube
platform thereby making it accessible to all persons who may have
missed the live telecast.
He submitted that from the established facts on record, it is beyond dispute that,
the 2nd defendant afforded the 1 defendant with the avenue to publish the
statements of the plaintiff without any hindrance whatsoever by the 2 defendant.

Learned counsel for the 2 defendant submitted in his written address that it
is without dispute that the 2 defendant afforded the panelists the opportunity
to express their views on the issues set for the day on its platform. He submitted t
hat that gesture is the practical means by which the 2 defendant seeks to aid in
giving effect to freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 21 of the
1992 Constitution. He asserted that the plaintiffs case is that the 2 defendant did
not call the 1 defendant to order when he made those comments and
contended  that it will be preposterous for any person to expect the 2 defendant to
anticipate what a panelist will say while on its platform. Counsel for the
2 defendant  asserted that it is phenomenal and the court should take judicial
notice of the fact that political discussions have the tendency of yielding to heated
debates during which discussants may trade insults, allegations and in some
extreme cases, physical blows. He quoted Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1975
(NRCD 323) on judicial notice and submitted that judicial notice may be taken at
any stage of the action. He stressed that the case of the 2nd defendant in
respect of the said comments is that the programme degenerated into a heated
argument making it difficult for the host of the programme to hear exactly what
the panelists said to each other during that brief period. He said the answers of
PW2 during cross-examination affirms the position that political shows have the
tendency of degenerating into heated arguments and that
from exhibit  2, the debate  became heated. Counsel for the 2 defendant  asserted 
that the 2 defendant's case is that during the heat of the debate, it was difficult to
hear what the panelists were saying to each other such as could put on the
2nd defendant the immediate responsibility to intervene in favour of the plaintiff.
He stated that had the host heard the comments complained of there and then, he
would have intervened for the plaintiff. He contended that PW2 confirmed that it
was difficult to hear the comments made by the 1 defendant. He submitted that
upon seeing the heated debate the 2 defendant took off the programme obviously
to forestall the escalation of the debate. He stated that in the circumstances, that
was the best means to deal with the situation.
I deliberately reproduced the evidence of DWl in detail which confirmed that
such programmes could be heated. It is difficult to understand  why DWl  as the
producer of the said programme, knowing such programmes could be so heated,
claimed he could not hear the panelists yet he did not do his duty as the producer
to instruct the host to regulate the panelists to maintain order on the programme
so that their viewers will benefit from the programme. The evidence of DWl
demonstrates the failure of him as the producer, the host at that time and in effect
the 2nd defendant in regulating or moderating the said panelists resulting in the
2nd  defendant being used by the 1 defendant to publish the said defamatory
words. This where the liability of the 2 defendant is evident.

The 2 defendant claims it rendered an apology to the plaintiff but did not
tender evidence of same nor produce the said Sammy Gyamfi to confirm  receipt
of a copy of the said apology from the 2 defendant to the plaintiff. Since the
2 defendant was aware from the plaintiffs pleadings (Reply) before the trial that
he contended that no apology has been rendered to him nor he been given a
recorded copy of the said apology, the 2 defendant in its own interest should have
presented evidence of the said apology in court but it failed or neglected to do so.

From the evidence led, it is not in doubt that the 2 defendant afforded the
1st defendant  with an avenue to publish the said
statement and I find that as a fact.

With regards to the issue of whether or not the 2 defendant republished

the statements made by the 1 defendant and referred to in paragraph 14 of the
Statement of Claim on its YouTube portal, PWl gave evidence that he watched the
programme on YouTube  and it  was after the live show. PW2 testified that on or 
about 5/3/2018 he saw the said video on YouTube. Under cross-examination by
counsel for the plaintiff, DWl asserted that Adekye Nsroma is not subsequently
broadcasted. He said it is streamed live on YouTube except where there are
technical difficulties. He admitted  that after it is streamed  live it remains on their
YouTube channel and can be assessed subsequently by anybody.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the evidence on record gives
a positive and unequivocal answer to this issue. He stated that the
2 defendant admitted that the programme is uploaded to the YouTube channel of 
the  2 defendant where it is accessible by all persons. He asserted that by
uploading the video of the programme on YouTube, the 2 defendant  has
invariably republished the statement made to the whole world. He concluded
that the 2 defendant did not only telecast the programme  live but it also
uploaded it on YouTube
subsequently and that conduct amounts to a republication of the statement.
I am persuaded by the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff as it is
in accordance with the law. I therefore find as a fact that the 2 defendant
republished the statement made by the 1 defendant.
On the issue of whether or not the words uttered by the 1 defendant in the fit
of anger during a heated argument can ground an action in defamation, the
1 defendant' s case is that the NDC communicator on the show, Asafo Adjei
provoked him by stating that he, the 1st defendant is not fit to clean the shoes of 
the plaintiff.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the 1 defendant, PW2 insisted that

the shouting between the 1st defendant and the other panelist as seen in the vide
o does not relate to the plaintiff as he was not a panelist or the subject of any of
the discussions on the particular programme. PW2 asserted that the attack on the
person and reputation of the plaintiff were unjustified and unwarranted by any
stretch of imagination. He stated that the plaintiff was not part of the programme
and did not have the opportunity to defend himself. He stressed that when a
person of
the plaintiffs stature as a successful businessman has been accused of stealing and 
that allegation has been published on the internet which is accessible to millions
of people across the globe, it stands to reason that the reputation of the person has
been greatly damaged.
Under cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff, the 1 defendant admitted
that the name of the plaintiff was introduced by him on several occasions without
cause. He added that it was mentioned without derogatory  statements against
him and that he just said the NDC panelist was
brought from Kumasi  by the plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that from the defendant's case they
have put up a defence to the effect that, the statement made by the 1 defendant is
not defamatory since it was made in the heat of the moment or that the
statement constitutes mere vituperation and therefore not actionable. He stated
that although the defence advanced by the defendants may be true, it is not
applicable in all cases especially in this instant case where all the parties to the
dispute are Ghanaians
and the law requires that custom should be applied to determine whether the stat
ement is defamatory or not. He cited Wankyiwaa v. Wereduwaa and Another
[1963] 1 GLR 332-337 where it was held in holdings  1 and 2 as follows:

1.    The words spoken constituted mere vituperation which is not redressible

at common law, but by section 15 of the Local Courts. Act, 1958, the
Circuit  Court should have decided the matter by customary law and not by
common  law principles.
2.     At customary  law abuse or vituperation  per se is a civil wrong redressible
by a pecuniary  award.

Counsel also cited Afriyie v. Dansowah [1976] 2 GLR 172-178 which
addressed the issue of mere vituperation in defamation action in its holdings  1 a
nd 2 as follows:
 1.     Where persons were subject to customary law, the law applicable to a
slander  action was customary law and a party did not need to elect which law he
was  proceeding under. A trial judge had first to determine whether the
words  complained of were spoken and of the party complaining. It then
became  necessary  to  determine whether they were defamatory and lastly  whether
they  were false, for slander under customary law was actionable per se
without  proof of special  damage  provided  it was  false.
2.     A trial judge who dismissed a slander action at customary law on the ground  that
the words, if spoken at all, were spoken in the course of a quarrel and in the heat of
passion and therefore were not actionable, failed to draw
the  necessary  distinction  between  slander  at  common  law  and  slander  at
customary law, and such summary dismissal of the action precluded him
from  properly  evaluating  the evidence.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that should the Court even apply
the common law to the instant case, the defence put up by the defendants will stil
l not avail them because, in all the cases where words said in anger or
vituperation
were held not to be actionable, the action was between the two parties directly in
volved in the vituperation so the instant case is distinguishable from all the decid
ed cases. He explained that the plaintiff herein was not a party to the verbal
exchanges or quarrels hence the principles of the authorities can be
distinguished  from this case. He cited Sobgaka v. Tamakloe [1973] 1 GLR
25, where Francois J (as he then was) said at pages 27-28:
"...Again I must mention that even where the authorities talk of vulgar abuse not  being
the subject of an action for slander at common law they confine themselves to an
exchange of words or a slanging match in vituperation. This was not the case
in  the  instant  appeal.  The facts show that one party and  one  party only delivered  the s
tinging  blows  ... "
Counsel for the plaintiff emphasized that from the above case, in each case where
a defence of vituperation  is raised, the court must determine the defence on its
merits as well as determine if the defence is applicable.
He stressed
that they are mindful of the decision in Bonsu v. Forson [1964] GLR 45-51 wherei
n the Supreme Court held that words spoken in the heat of passion were not
defamatory. He asserted that the facts of that case and the instant case
are completely different therefore making the decision in the case not applicable
in
the instant case. He stated the distinct features between the two cases as follows:

a.      In the Bonsu case, the action was instituted by the plaintiff who was himse
lf involved in the quarrel. However in this case, the plaintiff was not a
 party to the discussion or heated debate in which the statement  forming
the basis of this action was made.
b.      In  the  Bonsu  case,  the  parties  engaged  in  a  heated  exchange  of  words.
However in this case, the plaintiff had not engaged in any exchange of
words with the 1 defendant.
c.      The words  published  by the 1  defendant  was done  without  any  provoca
tion form the plaintiff herein unlike the Bonsu case.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in the Bonsu case, the

Supreme Court, stated that, the particular circumstances of each case must be
taken into account to determine whether the words are defamatory or not. He
asserted that having regard to the circumstances of this case, the words uttered by
the 1 defendant are clearly defamatory of the plaintiff and the defence of
vituperation/heatof passion will not avail the defendant. He stressed that it was
the 1 defendant who first mentioned and introduced the name of the plaintiff into
the discussion. He asserted that the claim that the said statement was said in a fit
of anger is at best an afterthought and at worst false, He said it is a lame attempt
by the 1 defendant to avoid responsibility for his utterances especially when the
plaintiff was not even present during the show so it could be said that the
1 defendant was provoked by him.

Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in determining the .weight to attach to
the testimony of a witness, the Court is required to consider several factors
including those provided under Section 80 of the Evidence  Act, 1975 (NRCD 323).
He listed the matters to be considered in attacking or supporting the credibility of
a witness as provided in Section 80 (1) and (2) of
NRCD 323 and asserted that the 1 defendant was/is not a credible
witness and his evidence must not be given any weight by the Court. He gave
examples from the evidence on record where the 1 defendant preferred to answer
with "no comment" when asked direct questions and asserted that it is a clear case
of dishonestly on the part of the 1 defendant.

Learned counsel for the 1 defendant cited Abena Pokuaa Ackah v.

Agricultural Development Bank supra and submitted that even though words
may be capable of defamatory meaning the authorities suggest
that once they were spoken in the heat of passion, same could not be held to be
defamatory.  He asserted that words
which are not uttered in the normal conversation but uttered in the heat of passio
n are not actionable. He cited Bonsu v. Forson supra and submitted that even
though the words may be capable of defamatory meaning, if the 1 defendant is
able to establish by the evidence that the words spoken by him as a panelist on
the said talk show were uttered in the heat of passion, same shall not be
actionable and the
plaintiff's action ought to fail. Counsel  claimed that the cases make no qualificati
on  to the effect that the words ought to have been spoken directly to the person to
whom it refers. He asserted that the 1st defendant's statement concerning the
plaintiff was made rather in the heat of passion and not in the ordinary
discussion. He contended that exhibit 1 reveals that the 1 defendant's
comments  concerning the plaintiff was so quick and sudden that it would only
take a very careful attention to hear same. He submitted that in the circumstances
the 1 defendant having been provoked to anger by an earlier comment made by
the NDC panelist in relation to the person of the plaintiff, in line with the
authority of Bonsu v. Forson Supra, such comment having been made in the
heat of passion is not actionable and the instant action ought to fail.

It must be stated that in the Bonsu v. Forson case cited by learned counsel for

the 1st defendant, it was both the plaintiff and defendant therein who were
highly incensed at each other, quarreled heatedly even to the point of fighting
who exchanged words and it was held that such words of heat or vulgar abuse is
not actionable. That case is distinguishable from the situation in this matter where
the plaintiff was not present at the programme, not the subject of discussion and
did not provoke the 1 defendant.
It is a fact from exhibits 1 and 2 that it was the 1 defendant who first mentioned
and introduced the name of the plaintiff into the discussion on the day in
question.
From the totality of the evidence adduced, I find as a fact that the words uttered b
y the 1 defendant, even if said in the fit of anger during a heated argument can
ground an action in defamation because of the circumstances  of this matter as
explained earlier in this judgment.
With respect to the issue of whether or not the statement made by the
1 defendant given its context can be said to be
defamatory, the defendant gave evidence that he knows the plaintiff as a well-
known member or sympathizer of the NDC. He said he appeared  as a
government  communication  team member with an NDC member as a panelist
on the said programme and the discussions resulted in heated
argument between the two of them. According to the 1 defendant, in the course
of the discussion he indicated that the NDC panelist was only  pretending to be
working hard in order to please the plaintiff, his political ' godfather' and he
remarked in a derogatory manner that the 1st defendant is not worthy to even
clean the shoes of the plaintiff. He said he was provoked to anger and
impulsively uttered the
statement forming  the  basis  of  the  plaintiff s  action.  The 1  defendant asserted 
that  the  said statement was made in passing and provoked by the earlier
derogatory remark by the NDC panelist who is a well-known affiliate of the
plaintiff. He stressed that the said statement in the context made was not intended
to defame the plaintiff as he has nothing personal against him and has not
occasioned any damage to him. He claimed that the said statement is one of a
 nature that characterizes the usual political debates especially between the NPP to
which he belongs and the NDC to which the
plaintiff belongs or which at least he is a well-known sympathizer.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff, the 1 defendant said he was 
not aware that the plaintiff has never held any political  office or that he is a
member of the NDC. The 1 defendant claimed he is not a member of the NPP and
explained that he is a member of the government  communication  team so he
speaks on behalf of the party and government in power. The 1 defendant asserted
that the debates on radio and television are always heated and they say what they
want to say and defend themselves. The 1 defendant said he is not familiar with
who the plaintiff is. He admitted that UTV is a television station that is available
to the general public. He said he was aware that the programmes shown on UTV
specifically the Adekye Nsroma programme has a considerable number  of
viewership and that when he sits on that programme and makes statements be it
true or false, it reaches the
viewership of UTV either through their YouTube channel or television. The 1 defe
ndant said he knows the plaintiff to be a businessman and a brother of the former
President of Ghana John Dramani Mahama. The  I defendant  alleged that it is an
open secret to all political commentators  and panelist who go on radio and
television to represent the current communication team of the NDC that they
profile themselves as coming from the plaintiffs end. The 1 defendant stated that
the statement he made of the plaintiff for which he is in court is not true.

I deliberately reproduced the details of the evidence of the 1 defendant  which

give an inference of his justification for the said defamatory statement.

From the totality of the evidence adduced, I find as a fact that the statement made
by the 1 defendant given its context can be said to be defamatory because of
the circumstances of this matter as explained earlier in this judgment.

The last issue to determine is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the
reliefs sought.  Learned  counsel  for the plaintiff asserted  that from the  pleadings 
of the parties some matters are not in dispute and by law there is no requirement
to
lead evidence on them as held in In re Asere Stool; Nikoi Olai Amontia IV (subs
tituted by Tafo Amon II) v. Akotia Oworsika III (substituted by
Laryea Ayiku 111) [2005-2006] SCGLR 637.
He submitted that from the pleadings and evidence before the court the
following allegations have been settled by the parties;
a.      The statement/publication complained of was made by
the 1 defendant while on a talk show run and telecast by the 2 defendant.
b.     The  name  of the plaintiff  was  first  introduced  into the  discussion  by the  1
defendant.
c.      The 1st defendant  admits that the plaintiff is a businessman.
d.     The statement made about the plaintiff by the 1 defendant is not true.
e.      The show remains on the 2 defendant's YouTube channel where it can 
be assessed anybody.
f.       The plaintiff was not a panelist on the said show and neither was he the subject
matter of the discussion on the show.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff emphasized that in a civil action, a party is
to establish his or her case on a preponderance of probabilities and relied on
Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and the cases
of Ackah
v. Pergah Transport [2010] SCGLR 728 at 736, Bogoso old Ltd. v. Ntrakwa [2011]
1 SCGLR 416, Kiah v.  Phoenix  Insurance Co. Ltd. [2012] 2 SCGLR  1139 and
Majolagbe  v. Larbi [1959] 190.

He asserted that the plaintiff has led enough evidence to establish the ingredients
of the tort of defamation as outlined in the case of Mrs. Abena Pokuaa Ackah
v. Agricultural Development Bank supra so he is entitled to the reliefs sought
against the defendants, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is notoriously
known
in Ghana as a businessman of considerable repute. He concluded that the defend
ants must be made to pay for their actions so as to guide them in their future
endeavours and to be a constant reminder to them to refrain from attacking the
reputations of persons without cause or basis.
Learned counsel for the 1st defendant submitted in his written address that
the plaintiff is under legal obligation  to
demonstrate  that the reliefs sought are borne by evidence and if he fails to
introduce sufficient evidence to prove his case on the preponderance of
probabilities, his case ought to fail. He relied on Sections 11(1), 12 (1) and 14 of
the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD) and the cases of Ababio v. Akwasi III [1994-95]
GBR 774, Citizen Kofi Entertainment Concept Ltd. v
Guinness Ghana Breweries Ltd. (2012) GMJ 167, Majolagbe
v. Larbi supra and Zabrama
v.   Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 221.
 
Learned counsel for the 2 defendant submitted that as against the 2 defendant,
the plaintiff has not led enough evidence to establish defamation. He asserted that
to establish defamation against a party, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant
has published or is responsible for publication of
defamatory material, which is reasonably understood to refer to the plaintiff,
either by name or by some other means of identification. He submitted that
considering the facts and the evidence the 2 defendant not being the author of the
comments complained of, cannot be
liable for the comments made, even if the court holds same as defamatory.
He stated that the role played by the 2 defendant as far as the publication
complained is concerned is to provide a platform for citizens such as the
1 defendant to exercise their constitutional right of freedom of expression. He
asserted that the 2 defendant did not instigate, cause, goad or in any way inspire
the 1 defendant to make
the comments he made and to that extent the 2 defendant being an innocent disse
minator of the comments complained of ought to be protected, and not held liable
in this matter. Counsel cited the English case of Metropolitan
International Schools Ltd. (TIA  Skillstrain and/or Train2Game) v.
Designtechnica Corp (TIA  Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16 JUL 2009.

Learned counsel for the 2 defendant submitted that until after the review of
the programme, the host of the said programme was not in the position to know
or
have any reason to believe that the comments were defamatory of the plaintiff due 
to the noisy nature of the debate and cited the case of
Bottomey v. Woolworths (1932) 48 T/L. R. 521 in support of his assertions. He
urged the court to accept the 2 defendant's claim of innocence in respect of the
said comments as the 2 defendant could not have anticipated them. He claimed
the 2 defendant took off the said programme and that act should avail to it relief
from any liability as the act was
to abate the publication of  any further comments of unpalatable  nature.
Learned counsel for the 2 defendant submitted that one of the reliefs sought by
the plaintiff is an apology and the 2 defendant stated that exactly two weeks after
the programme was aired, and upon review of same rendered an apology to the
plaintiff on the same platform where the comments were made. He asserted that t
he fact of the 2nd defendant rendering an apology to the plaintiff is without
dispute as it was confirmed by PW2 during cross-examination. Counsel said
having made an apology, there is not residuary responsibility towards the
plaintiff to warrant the court's intervention so to that extent, the plaintiff is not
entitled to his reliefs against the 2 defendant. He concluded that the court should
dismiss the plaintiffs claim against the 2 defendant.
I have considered the totality of the evidence adduced and detailed submission of
all learned counsel herein. The facts and evidence adduced indicates that the
plaintiff is not a politician nor holds a political office nor authorised any person to
be on the said programme. The facts and evidence establish that the plaintiff is a
businessman and was not a party to the political discussions the 1 defendant was
involved in on the day in question. It is a fact that it was the 1 defendant who
mentioned
and introduced the name of the plaintiff in the said programme. The facts and evi
dence establish that the host of the said programme did not adequately regulate
the said programme nor get the 1st defendant to substantiate or retract his
defamatory statement against the plaintiff. The facts and evidence adduced indica
tes that even after the live programme the said defamatory statement was
available on the 2 defendant's YouTube channel. These are the facts and
circumstances of this matter and form the basis of the decision herein.

I have deliberately reproduced in detail the submissions made by all learned

counsel herein so that I do not have to repeat same if I indicate that I am
persuaded by a particular one. I have carefully considered the facts and totality of
evidence adduced and the detailed submissions made by all learned counsel for
the parties herein and the authorities they cited in support of same. The facts,
evidence adduced and exhibits tendered in this matter support the submissions
made by learned counsel
for the plaintiff and it is supported by the law. Based on an evaluation of the evid
ence led, I am persuaded  by the submissions  made by learned counsel for the pl
aintiff.

No other issue(s) arose out of the pleadings or evidence.
An evaluation of the evidence adduced indicates that the plaintiff has discharged
the burden of proof on him as required by Sections 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence
Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). Judgment is therefore entered for the plaintiff against the 
defendants jointly and severally for the reliefs sought.
With respect to  relief (c) on "An order directed at the 1 defendant, compelling
him to publish in the Daily Graphic and on UTV an unqualified apology to the pl
aintiff and a retraction of the said statements with the same prominence and
passion as the defamatory statement", I grant the said relief without the aspect of
"passion as the defamatory statement" as the Court has no known method to
determine that
or measure its performance or otherwise. It is trite that the Court does not grant or
ders it cannot supervise.
Relief (e) is on Punitive/exemplary damages of Two Million Ghana Cedis
for defamation. The plaintiffs case that he is a highly respected and prominent bus
iness leader and an astute entrepreneur with a formidable reputation which
transcends the borders of Ghana and spans across the world. He contends that as
a result of the defamatory statement made by the 1 defendant and publish d by
the 2nd  defendant, his character, pride, reputation, credibility and credit has been
tarnished/reduced
in the estimation of right thinking members of the Ghanaian society and the inter
national  community  at large. He gave the particulars of damage as follows:

a.      As an internationally renowned business executive and entrepreneur,

the plaintiff has suffered as exceedingly serious damage to his hard-
earned reputation by being portrayed to right thinking members of society
as a person of moral decadence who is not law-abiding.
 b.     The plaintiff has suffered serious damage to his character and reputation
by being portrayed as a person whose source of wealth is through dubious
means such as stealing.
c.     The plaintiff has suffered serious damage to his character and reputation
by being portrayed as a person who is corrupt.
d.     As a renowned businessman other business entities worldwide would
shy away from dealing with the plaintiff because of the damage caused to
his reputation and character as a result of the defamatory statements made
by the defendant.
The plaintiff who asserted the above did not appear in court nor testify in support
of his claims to assist the Court determine the extent to which the said
defamatory words have negatively affected  him. It is his witnesses  who testified 
on his behalf.
The Bible in Proverbs 22:1 states that a good name is better than riches. This impli
es that a good name is priceless. It is because of this that people expend a lot of
effort to have and maintain a good name as it valuable not only to the person but 
his family as a whole. This is why defamation of a person without justification is
actionable
as it seeks to rob the defamed person of something very precious and priceless.
It is beyond doubt that the words used by the 1 defendant defamed the plaintiff
as the 1st defendant could not justify them. Considering the said statement and
without the benefit of the evidence of the plaintiff himself to assist the court asses
s the extent of damage to him, I am of the opinion that GH¢300,000.00 is a fair
amount to
award as  damages  to  send  a  clear  message  that a  person  cannot  d fame anoth
er  without justification. I therefore  award  damages of GH¢300,000.00  to the 
plaintiff against both defendants herein.

I have considered the factors stated in Order 74 rule 2(3) of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) as amended by C.I.87 with respect to costs.
I have also considered the facts and peculiar circumstances of this case. In view of
that, I am of the opinion that GH¢10,000.00 is adequate as costs. I therefore award
costs of GH¢10,000.00 to the plaintiff against both defendants herein.
The 1st defendant asserted that the statement prompting the plaintiff to institute
this action is one of the statements that characterizes the usual political debates es
pecially between the NPP which the 1 defendant belongs and the NDC which the
plaintiff belongs or which at least he is a well-known sympathizer.
If this assertion is true, then as we prepare for elections next year, political
panelists on radio, television and other shows need to be circumspect with their
words as false accusations have legal consequences. The citizens deserve
discussions on solutions to national issues and not attacks on personalities. It is
 hoped that the producers
and hosts of such programmes would regulate their panelist to achieve this aim.