Aryeetey Vrs Oduro Owusu and Another [2022] GHAHC 23 (27 October 2022)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT 5) HELD IN ACCRA ON THURSDAY THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE WILLIAM BOAMPONG, HIGH COURT JUDGE SUIT NO: GJ/1742/2019 PROFESSOR ERNEST ARYEETEY PLAINTIFF 10 ASHITEY TREBI, OTINSHIE EAST LEGON, ACCRA VS 1. PROFESSOR EBENEZER ODURO OWUSU VICE-CHANCELLOR’S RESIDENCE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON 2. UNIVERSITY OF GHANA DEFENDANTS LEGON, ACCRA J U D G M E N T This is a claim in defamation in which the Plaintiff claims per his Amended Writ of Summons as follows:- a) Declaration that the 1st Defendant’s statements in March 2018, August 2018 and on 2nd July 2019 imputing wrongdoing, illegal and corrupt acts against the Plaintiff are defamatory of the Plaintiff. b) Damages, including aggravated damages, against the 1st Defendant for the injury caused to the Plaintiff’s reputation as a former Vice Chancellor and an accomplished academic of international repute. c) An Order compelling the 1st Defendant to issue a written retraction of the defamatory statements and render an unqualified apology to the Plaintiff, and addressed to the members of the 2nd Defendant’s staff, the convocation and the 2nd Defendant’s alumni, and to be published on the 2nd Defendant’s “Radio Universe” network on three consecutive occasions. d) An Order restraining the 1st Defendant from publishing further defamatory statements of and concerning the Plaintiff, and e) Plaintiff’s cost and legal fees for these proceedings on full recovery basis. PLAINTIFF’S CASE: The Plaintiff had based his action for defamation on paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 of his Amended Statement of Claim filed on the 19th December, 2019. They are quoted as follows:- “22. The Plaintiff states that the 1st Defendant made the first of his defamatory and objectionable statement during a meeting that the 1st Defendant held with the staff of the 2nd Defendant in March 2018. 23. On that occasion, the 1st Defendant’s statements were published widely by including one by “mynewsgh.com” and in which the 1st Defendant was quoted as saying that the Plaintiff signed the Africa Integras Project “without any basic due diligence” and that the agreement was signed in September 2015, construction started in February 2016, way before I took over as Vice Chancellor. So it is obvious and it has been obvious before I took over, that the condition was impossible to meet. As to why the University signed, this the question that has led us to where we are today. 24. The Plaintiff states that these statements disparaged him and portrayed him in the eyes of the public and all right thinking persons as having engaged in unreasonable, wrongful and improper acts in the signing of the concession agreement. 25. The 1st Defendant is reported to have continued thus “I have been trying to understand the decision to no avail and that at the movement the University of Ghana needs a rescue mission as the contract didn’t have reasonable exist clauses”. 26. The 1st Defendant is further quoted as saying that:- “I don’t understand, you don’t understand, Counsel doesn’t understand. So we are where we are today because we don’t understand. There are clauses in that Agreement that completely enslaves the University as an institution [sic] and so right now the answer to that question as to why we signed the agreement, let me be very frank with you because where we are nobody can hide any fact from us or from the public. That question remains unanswered and I have wish somebody could provide me with that answer. Nevertheless, we have gotten or we are getting to the tail end of it and the demand involves fights and energy to resave this University, otherwise what is going to happen is not good; an International Court would give an order and this University could be taken over” 27. The Plaintiff says that the 1st Defendant meant by these statements and his audience clearly understood him to mean that the Plaintiff misconducted himself as Vice-Chancellor and did wrong in the processes leading to the signing of the agreement. 28. The Plaintiff says that these statements gravely defamed him by lowering his esteem among his peers and colleagues within the 2nd Defendant and other academic associates and partners in the country and around the globe. 29. The Plaintiff says that the 1st Defendant has neither denied that he made the defamatory statements nor its publication even though the publication have been brought to his attention and/or come to his knowledge. 30. The Plaintiff says that the 1st Defendant made the second of the defamatory and objectionable statement on 11th August 2018 in Maryland, U. S. A, during a meeting of the North America branch of 2nd Defendant’s alumni, and at a time the local and international news outlets, were awash with stories about the potential losses to the 2nd Defendant from the dispute with African Integras. 31. On that occasion, the 1st Defendant stated that he “struggled to obtain documents on the project because the Plaintiff did not provide him with any handing over notes. 32. The 1st Defendant added that he “had no knowledge of the Concession Agreement or the University Council” at the relevant time. 33. The 1st Defendant further stated that “in Ghana and at Legon, when you try to do the right thing, you become an enemy and that he and the Minister of Education and Finance cannot all be wrong” and concluded by asking why the previous members of the University Council have not challenged his assertions or spoken on the matter, if his claims were untrue. 34. The Plaintiff says that the 1st Defendant meant by these statements, and his audience understood him to mean that the Plaintiff did the wrong things and misconducted himself as Vice-Chancellor in signing the agreement and then kept the agreement from 1st Defendant to prevent the 1st Defendant from knowing the Plaintiff’s wrong deeds. 35. The Plaintiff says that the 1st Defendant knows that these assertions are false but he made them recklessly and with no regard whatsoever of the injury caused to the Plaintiff’s reputation by the statements. 36. Plaintiff add that the 1st Defendant made the third defamatory and objectionable statement on 2nd July 2019 during a meeting of convocation at the 2nd Defendant, where the 1st Defendant openly stated that: “Former Vice Chancellor managed the University of Ghana well, what happened between August 2010 and August 2016”? At all material times the Plaintiff also stated the words which he claimed are Defamatory imputed on the 1st Defendant about Plaintiff in his Witness Statement. 1ST DEFENDANT’S CASE: The cumulative effect of the 1st Defendant’s Statement of Defence is a clear admission that he uttered the said claimed defamatory words complained off by the Plaintiff. 1st Defendant however quickly add that the said words are not defamatory but a fair, justified and honest comments on the affairs of the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant manifested same in paragraphs 21, 26, 28, 34, 36 of his Statement of Defence as follows:- “21. The Defendant denies that the statement in paragraph 22 of the Statement of Claim reproduced below and additionally listed as [1] [2] and [3] for comment by the Defendant, are defamatory. 26. The Defendant denies that the contents of paragraph 24 of the Statement of Defence reproduced below are defamatory because same are the Defendant’s honest opinion and they are not false. “[1] I have been trying to understand the decision to no avail and [2] at [the] moment, the University of Ghana needs a rescue mission. [3] as the contract didn’t have reasonable exit clauses”. “[1] That the Plaintiff signed the project “without any basic due diligence [2] that “the agreement was signed in September 2015 construction started in February 2016, before I took over as Vice-Chancellor so it is obvious and it has been obvious before I took over that the condition was impossible to meet. [3] As to why the University signed, this is a question that has led us to where we are today”. “28 The Defendant denies that the following Statements imputed to him in paragraph 25 of the Statement of Claim are defamatory because these are the Defendants’ honest opinion and they are not false. [1] “I don’t understand, you don’t understand, Council doesn’t understand [2] there are clauses in the agreement that enslave the University as an institution [1] And so right now the answer to that question as to why we signed that agreement… the question remained unanswered and I wish someone could provide me with that answer. Nevertheless, we have gotten or we are getting to that tail end of it and [3] the demand involves fights and energy to rescue this University, otherwise what is going to happen is not good: an International Court could give an Order and this University could be taken over”. “In paragraph 32 of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff imputes the following Statement to the Defendant and claims that they are defamatory which are hereby denied.” [1] …in Ghana and at Legon, when you try to do the right thing, you become an enemy and [2] that the Minister of Education and finance cannot all be wrong” You concluded by asking why the previous members of the University Council have not challenged your assertion or spoken on the matter, if your claims were untrue. 36. “The Defendant states that the contents of paragraph 35 of the Statement of Claim, reproduce below constitutes a fair and justified comments on recent financial records of the University and are not defamatory because they are true. “Former Vice Chancellors managed University of Ghana well, what happened between August 2010 and August 2016?’ In effect, and in defence of the 1st Defendant, 1st Defendant by his defence had not denied uttering the said words as claimed by the Plaintiff to be defamatory of the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant maintain those words spoken by him constitutes a fair and justified comments which are honest and stood for the plain truth on the matter spoken off. 2ND DEENDANT’S DEFENCE CASE: The 2nd Defendant applied to be joined to this suit on the grounds that the declarations and order being brought by the Plaintiff will gravely effect how the 2nd Defendant or 1st Defendant or any agent of 2nd Defendant will communicate in future in respect of the African Integras Project. The Court differently constituted granted the application for joinder and joined the University of Ghana as the 2nd Defendant in this suit. Pursuant to the grant of this joinder application, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Writ and Statement of Claim. However in the Plaintiff’s Amended Writ and Statement of Claim, Plaintiff made no claim against the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant denies that the words complained off by the Plaintiff are defamatory. 2nd Defendant states that same represents the honest opinion of the 1st Defendant of which the 1st Defendant made as the true facts, of which was the mandatory and statutory duty of the 1st Defendant the then Vice- Chancellor of University of Ghana. ISSUES: At the close of the pleadings the following issues were set down for trial. 1. Whether or not the Statements complained of are defamatory? 2. Whether or not the 1st Defendant has any justification in law in making those statements? 3. Whether or not the opinion held by 1st Defendant and ascribed to the 2nd Defendant is based on facts that are true? 4. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claims in this suit? DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES: In the pleadings of the 1st Defendant, he referred to all the words complained off by the Plaintiff in his paragraphs 21, 26, 28, 34, 36 of his Statement of Defence. In those said paragraphs in his Statement of Defence, he even referred to and reproduced all these words complained off by the Defendant. In all these occasions in reference to words the Plaintiff claims to have defamed him, the Defendant stated in all certain terms in his paragraphs 21, 26, 28, 34, 36 of his Statement of Defence that those words are the true facts which represents the Defendant’s honest opinion on the African Intergras Project relating to the Plaintiff’s misguided conduct. The 1st Defendant therefore pleaded justification in making those statements. Counsel for the 1st Defendant therefore argued that the 1st Defendant was justified in making those statements. The 1st Defendant by the import of his pleadings did not plead that he did not utter those words. His defence was that since those words complained off by the Plaintiff are true in its facts and are his honest opinion same are not defamatory. Since same are not considered as defamatory by the 1st Defendant, his Counsel had argued out on a defence of justification. Once a plea of justification comes in a defamatory suit, then the issue of whether or not the 1st Defendant made the said statements which the Plaintiff claimed be defamation is resolved. The summary of the 1st Defendant’s defence therefore is “I made the said statement complained off but I am justified in making same”. The same defence is re-echoed in the 2nd Defendant’s Statements of Defence when the 2nd Defendant also pleaded that the words complained off by the Plaintiff are the true facts and represents the 1st Defendant’s honest opinion and that the 1st Defendant was justified in making them. 2nd Defendant’s pleadings also corroborates that the 1st Defendant uttered those words and puts the said issue at rest. Per the pleadings of the Defendants and the plea of justification canvass for the 1st Defendant in his Counsel’s address, any attempt to be made by the 1st Defendant that he did not utter those words will amount to the 1st Defendant’s running away from the plain truth. I hold that the 1st Defendant indeed altered all those words as stated in paragraphs 22, 23, 25, 26, 31 of the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim. Having established that the 1st Defendant uttered the said statements complained of, the next issue to be determined is as to whether or not the said statements are defamatory; OR since the 1st Defendant himself is pleading justification and stated that the said words are not defamatory, the Court should resolve as to whether or not the said words are defamatory or not? Baron Parke, in the case of: Parmiter v Cuplands [1840] 6M & W at 108 151 ER, 340 Defined defamation to be “a publication without justification or lawful excuse, calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, ridicule or contempt” This same meaning was adopted and applied by the Supreme Court in the case of: Adekola v University of Development Studies (J4/59/2913/2014) Halsbury in his Halsbury Laws of England 4th Edition, Vol 28 page 23 paragraph 45 provides the following guidance in the law of defamation. “The meaning of words for the purpose of the law of defamation not a question of illegal construction, since laymen will read into words on implication more freely than a lawyer. The meaning is that which the words would convey to ordinary persons. The ordinary person reads between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs” Before I consider as to whether or not the said Statement were defamatory or not, I would consider whether the said statement were published. It is clear from the exhibits tendered in by the Plaintiff that the statements were published by several news outlets. For example, Exhibit ‘B’, an outlet publication dated 2nd March 2018 reported verbatim the first statement in issue. Exhibit ‘B1', another separate and independent online publication of 2nd March 2018 also reported verbatim the first statement in issue. Both Exhibit ‘B’ and B1 attributed the statements in issue to 1st Defendant in direct quotation and heralded the reports with 1st Defendant’s photographs. The 2nd statement published on the 11th August 2018 did not have any doubt about the 1st Defendant. Exhibit ‘B3’ an independent online publication dated 15th August 2018 in a report related to the project published that: “…following the exit of Professor Aryeetey and the swearing in the new Vice Chancellor, Prof. Ebenezer Oduro-Owusu, it was alleged that the arrangement by Prof Aryeetey was not value for money and that something was wrong with it. It was also claimed that Professor Aryeetey had received financial inducement to allow the project proceed since it was economically unreasonably and would cost the University more money.” Exhibit ‘B3’ heralded this report with the photograph of 1st Defendant as the person making the claims. Exhibit ‘B4’ an online publication was more direct in reporting that 1st Defendant made the second statement. Several publication i.e. Exhibits (B5 – B15) B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14 and B15 also published and concluded likewise. Counsel for the 1st Defendant strongly submits that the statements complained off by the Plaintiff are not defamatory. Counsel for the 1st Defendant continues that to prove that the statements are defamatory, the Plaintiff needs to prove that the statements complained of was published by the Defendant, and that it was about the Plaintiff. Plaintiff should also prove that the statements were false and had injured the reputation of the Plaintiff. He submits that the Plaintiff had failed to establish all these things. He submits that even if the 1st Defendant had uttered those words he was justified in so doing since same represents the truth of the matter and constitutes the honest opinion of the 1st Defendant. Counsel for the 1st Defendant concludes that if the Plaintiff insist that the decision to enter into the Africa Integras Concession Agreement was taken by the 2nd Defendant, then how would the reputation of the Plaintiff be injured by an honest opinion of the 1st Defendant or an abrasive criticism of that decision. Indeed the 1st Defendant centered his plea of justification in the statement he made in March 2018, August 2018, and July 2019 by his pleadings and further stated in his Witness Statement that no one knew about the project and it was masterminded single-handedly and clandestinely by the Plaintiff to rob the University for Plaintiff’s personal benefits. Surprisingly the 1st Defendant himself tendered Exhibits 11, 12, 13 15, 16, 17 which are all copies of the agreement and documents on the project, how could the 1st Defendant mount the podium at three functions or University programs to utter the said statements to the effect that no one understands why the project was contracted and that Plaintiff left no documents on the project. It is clear and obvious that at the time the 1st Defendant made those statements the existence of Exhibits 11 – 17 mentioned supra were all within the knowledge of the 1st Defendant. Since exhibit 11 – 17 represents copies of the agreement and documents on the Integras project how can one positively support the truth value of the statement that no one knew about the project and was masterminded single handedly and clandestinely by the Plaintiff to rob the University for the Personal Benefit of the Plaintiff. With the presence of Exhibits ‘11 – 17’, more so even coming from the custody of the 1st Defendant himself, I find it difficult to come into terms that the said statements made by the 1st Defendant represents the true of the facts to enable 1st Defendant to rely on fair comment and justification. The plaintiff also tendered several documents which the 1st Defendant did not even put in question to indicate that the University of Ghana did not know all detailed of the Integras project. For example Exhibit ‘A’ – showed that the project formed part of the University physical developments within its 10 years strategic plan, which had been widely published. Exhibit ‘C’ & ‘C1’ – are the University’s own publication on its website on 26th June 2015 of that signing of the project agreement with the University’s Registrar at the time the Plaintiff was openly captured in the photograph at the function at the Great Hall with the project arrangers. Exhibit ‘C2’ – is another University website publication on 4th September 2015 with the photographs of the then Vice President of Ghana, His Excellency the late Paa Kwasi Amissah Arthur cutting the sod for the commencement of the project. That publication shows several other photographs of several dignitaries including the chairman of the University Council at the time. Professor Justice Samuel Kofi Date-Bah, a retired and highly – distinguished Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana. Exhibit ‘E’ – ‘E2’ – are all minutes of several meetings of the University’s Senior Management between March 2014 and October 2015, with 1st Defendant’s present on many occasions at which meetings the project was discussed and evaluated at various committee levels at the University. Exhibit ‘G’ – this very exhibit was tendered through the 1st Defendant: Exhibit ‘G’ is the University’s publication of 1st Defendant’s speech welcoming students on campus and in which he touted that “we have a bold strategy amplified in our strategic plan (Exhibit A) to take us to 2024” Exhibit ‘10’ – comprising minutes of Council in June 2014, July 2014, November 2014, February 2015, March 2016, June 2016, December 2015, March 2016, June 2016, September 2016, all containing records of discussions of the Integras Project at the highest levels of the University’s decision making structures. With all these Exhibits under the armpit of the 1st Defendant how can he justify his statement that no one knows about the Integras Project. A project he the 1st Defendant had referred to in Exhibit ‘G’ and even praised. I have no single doubt in my mind that the statement made by the 1st Defendant that no one knew about the project and that same was masterminded single handedly by the Plaintiff to rob the University for the Plaintiff’s personal benefit and any further statement based on the said premise about the Plaintiff was actuated by malice. The 1st Defendant also pleaded in paragraph 39 of his Statement of Defence as follows:- “The Defendant shall rely on the financial records of the university and judgment debts awarded against the University to show that leadership decision taken between 2010 and 2016 have resulted in an unprecedented indebtedness amounting to Five Hundred and Sixty Three Million Nine Hundred and Sixty Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Ten Ghana Cedis and Sixty Four Pesewas (GH¢563,968,410.64) against the University of Ghana”. It is however observed that the 1st Defendant could not prove this as his allegation as contained in his paragraph 39 of his statement of Defence. Surprisingly even when the 1st Defendant was under cross-examination and was offered the opportunity to show from his over 460 – pages exhibited how Plaintiff’s decision between 2010 – 2016 resulted in the so-called “unprecedented indebtedness amounting to Five Hundred and Sixty Three Million Nine Hundred and Sixty Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Ten Ghana Cedis and Sixty Four Pesewas (GH¢563,968,410.64), the 1st Defendant could not take advantage of this last chance to establish same. The 1st Defendant inability to establish or prove the facts forming the bases of the statement he made of the Plaintiff his plea of justification cannot be sustainable. My understanding about the plea of justification and fair comment in a defamation suit is that – the comments, as well as the facts must be proved to be true for the defence of justification to succeed but if the facts are established and the comment is fair the defence of fair comment can also succeed. It is therefore settled that for the defence of justification to succeed the words complained of should be true in substance and in fact. The present 1st Defendant in this suit had been unable to prove the truth of the facts that he relied on to make his comment. A plea of justification and fair comments are therefore not available to him. The defence of justification and fair comments having unable to avail the 1st Defendant, the said words he uttered about the Plaintiff had wounded the self-esteem of the Plaintiff. The reputation of the Plaintiff is not doubted on the records. The Plaintiff had pleaded about his reputation at paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and same was not challenged by the defence. Plaintiff’s reputation as a widely – acclaimed professional, an accomplished academic and an economist of international reputed is not doubted and not in dispute. The Plaintiff namely Professor Ernest Aryeetey, needs no introduction on any circle in this country and many other places. The Plaintiff at paragraphs 18 & 19 of his Witness Statement outlined how the 1st Defendant by said defamatory statement about him had injured his personal, professional and academic reputation as follows:- “18 on each occasion that the first Defendant published his defamatory statement about me, I received telephone calls and messages from friends, family members, professional colleagues, local and International Associate Partners and from people in several other academic and public circles questioning me on the claims by the 1st Defendant. The questions and concern from my family friends and professional colleagues and persons from academic and other public circles questioning me on the claims by the 1st Defendant. The questions and concern from my family friends and professional colleagues and persons from academic and other public circles intensified when the 1st Defendant’s slanderous statements were picked up and broadcasted on various news platforms, particularly on the internet”. “19. As the then Vice-Chancellor who led the process and eventually signed the agreement, the 1st Defendant portrayed me in the eyes of the public and all right thinking persons and among my colleagues as having engaged in corrupt, wrongful, improper and unreasonable acts in signing the AI project agreement, he set out to malign me by deliberately imputing improper, illegal, corrupt and criminal conduct to me. The 1st Defendant’s statement have gravely injured my reputation and also ridiculed me among my peers at the University in particular and within the general populace and international academic circles. The statement lowered my esteem in the eyes of this community of academics and high level professionals. In one such instance, I was interviewed by a well- known Ghanaian journalist about my time as Vice Chancellor and the interview was scheduled to be aired on one of the public television stations. The 1st Defendant’s attacks on my integrity and personality began soon after the said interview and this forced the television station to drop the planned telecast. It was about the same time, I have been invited by the Vice- Chancellor of University of Lagos Nigeria, to be a Resource person at a retreat of their University Council. Days before the retreat, the invitation to me was rescinded. I have been greatly distressed and embarrassed by these false and defamatory statements about me and my tenure as the University’s Vice-Chancellor”. The Plaintiff thus led all these evidence to establish how the statements made by the 1st Defendant about him had injured his personal professional, and academic reputation and Counsel for the 1st Defendant could not challenge these assertions during the cross-examination of the Plaintiff. With all these piece of evidence at hand, I hold that the 1st Defendant set out to and did defame the Plaintiff for no good reasons. 1st Defendant did so knowingly and in flagrant display of malice. Indeed the 1st Defendant knew that what he uttered against the Plaintiff were false but he proceeded to represent Plaintiff as a corrupt past Vice-Chancellor and a criminal before the immediate University Community and across the world. 1st Defendant had no proof for his statement but yet mounted the podium and altered:- “Let me be very frank with you because where we are nobody can hide any fact from us or from the public. That question remains unanswered and I wish somebody could provide me that answer and on another occasion too “Former Vice Chancellors managed the University of Ghana well, what happened between August 2010 and 2016? For these and other utterances made by the 1st Defendant about the Plaintiff which were published and gravely injured the reputation of the Plaintiff, I proceed to enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff against 1st Defendant on all the reliefs as endorsed on the Plaintiff’s Amended Writ of Summons. Consequently, I hereby 1) Declare that the 1st Defendant’s statement in March 2018, August 2018 and 2nd July 2019 imputing wrong doing illegal and corrupt acts against the Plaintiff are defamatory of the Plaintiff. 2) I award GH¢300,000.00 Damages, including aggravated damages, against the 1st Defendant for the injury caused to the Plaintiff’s reputation as a former Vice-Chancellor, and an accomplished academic of international repute. 3) I hereby Order the 1st Defendant to issue a written retraction of the defamatory statement and render an unqualified apology to the Plaintiff, and address to the members of 2nd Defendant’s staff, the convocation and the 2nd Defendant’s alumni, and to be published on the 2nd Defendant’s “Radio Universe” network on three consecutive occasions. Same to be done within 21 days from today the 27th October, 2022. 4) I hereby restrain the 1st Defendant from publishing further defamatory statements of and concerning the Plaintiff. 5) Cost in this suit is assessed at GH¢30,000.00 in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant. Upon an application of the 2nd Defendant who was joined to this suit, even though the Plaintiff had not made any claim against 2nd Defendant. Even upon the joinder of the 2nd Defendant, 2nd Defendant to this suit, the Plaintiff still made no claim against the 2nd Defendant in this Amended Writ of Summons. I cannot also make any claim in this suit against the 2nd Defendant. Since the 2nd Defendant insisted to be joined to this suit, even though the Plaintiff did not need 2nd Defendant for any claim, the Plaintiff cannot fairly be made to suffer any cost in favour of the 2nd Defendant. 2nd Defendant is therefore ordered to bear its own cost. (SGD) WILLIAM BOAMPONG JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT COUNSEL: KWESI FYNN ESQ, FOR THE PLAINTIFF JUSTIN AMENUVOR ESQ, FOR THE DEFENDANTS 22