<<Print>>

The Criminal Division of the Accra High Court has exposed one Stella Cobbah, a worker at the Takoradi office of the Ghana Marine Time Authority for fabricating stories to dent the hard-earned reputation of an Immigration officer.

This was after the plaintiff; Isaac Dzihlornu, had sued the General Portfolio, publishers of the Chronicle Newspaper and two of its staff members for defaming him on numerous occasions without basis.

The court presided over by Justice Mrs Sophia Rossetta Bernasko Essah, in her judgement, stated that “the defendant statements and publication in respect of the Plaintiff were defamatory.”

The 25-page judgment reads in parts that “the Defendants are not excused and indeed has failed to satisfy me that they can seek protection under the defence of justification or fair comment.

“They defamed the Plaintiff. I will therefore find that the Plaintiff has proved his cases and is entitled to their claim.”

While awarding damages to the plaintiff, the court said, “The purpose of general damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the effects of the defamatory statement.”

According to her, “it was held that general damages in a defamation case serve three functions, to act as a consolation to the Plaintiff for the distress he suffers from the publication of the statement; to repair the harm to his reputation,, including, where relevant, his business reputation; and as a vindication of its reputation.

Stella Cobbah exposed

According to the judgement, “There is no claim that he (Plaintiff) went into the database to procure her (first Defence Witness or DW1) travel information. Indeed from her witness statement, they met while she was on campus as a teacher in training in the Volta Region.

“Again Defendant did not provide any evidence that he extorted money from her or swindled her, yet they two were lovers. Although the defendant, in proving justification, stated that the Plaintiff used the same modus operandi as he did with DW 1 to befriend another Ghanaian lady which relationship ended upon the rocks, this was not proved.

“There is no evidence either that his mode of wooing the several other women he had had relationships with and or had had children with was by the same modus operandi. I will therefore find as fact that the Defendant has failed to satisfy me that the facts contained in the publication were true to enable them to rely on the defence of justification. I will find that defendant failed to justify this publication,” the judgement stated.

The court said, “Not only had that but [also] Defendants relied on the information given them by a former lover of the Plaintiff. DWI was aggrieved because the Plaintiff had deceived her into believing he was going to marry her.”

Orders
“Therefore, although Plaintiff must not be awarded a sum which will encourage him
to regard a successful libel action as a road to riches, the damages must be such as will serve as a deterrent to the Defendants not to repeat their conduct.

“Having considered the totality of the evidence before this court, as well as conduct of the Defendants from the time the libel was published down to today, in that they blatantly refused to apologize when they had no justification for the words they published, I will award the sum of GHS 70,000 in General Damages for defamation.

“Defendants is to publish a retraction and an apology to Plaintiff and give the said retraction and apology the same prominence the defamatory publication received in two publications on a Monday, and a Wednesday in a week.
“Defendants are perpetually restrained together with their agents, assigns and servants from further publication of any defamatory words against Plaintiff Cost of the action, the cost of GHS70,000.00 against all the Defendants,” it stated.