Dery’s lawyer sues four for defamation

Embattled High Court judge Justice Paul Dery’s lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa-Addo, has sued four – two individuals and two institutions – for defamation.

He is praying the court to fine each of the defendants GHS500,000 for defamation.

The first defendant is the secretary of the Disciplinary Committee, General Legal Council, Accra; the second defendant is the chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee, General Legal Council; the 3rd defendant is the Disciplinary Committee, General Legal Council, and 4th defendant is Excellence in Broadcasting (EIB).

The suit said the first Defendant, acting under the instructions of the second Defendant, and on behalf of the third Defendant, caused to be posted at the court premises a purported notice of an invitation to the Plaintiff and eight others to appear before the 3rd Defendant on 25 February, 2016, “for a preliminary hearing of respective complaint of professional misconduct lodged against them”.

The plaintiff said the fourth defendant, on Wednesday 17 February 2016, republished the contents of the said notice on its website, with the headline: ‘Dery’s lawyer, 8 others hauled before DC for misconduct’.

The plaintiff asserted that at all material times, the first, second and third defendants knew or ought to have known that the notice was likely to be read and republished by other persons, as has been done by the fourth defendant.

The plaintiff averred that by the ordinary meaning of the allegations in the said notice, the allegations were meant and understood to mean that the plaintiff was an incompetent and unethical lawyer, who was engaged in professional misconduct.

The plaintiff averred that the said publication and republication were made without any justification and or lawful excuse and calculated to injure his reputation and also to expose him to hatred, ridicule, damage to his person and profession.

The plaintiff said that the publication of the notice by the first, second, and third defendants was actuated by malice, calculated to damage his reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society.

The plaintiff is, therefore, seeking a relief of general damages of GHS500,000 each for the defamatory contents of the notice published and republished by the defendants.

He has sought aggravated damages for the “malicious” publication and republication of the said notice, exemplary damages for the “reckless” publication and republication of the said notice, compensatory damages for the damage done to the plaintiff’s reputation, a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from publishing any further defamatory material about the plaintiff, legal costs and any other orders that the court may deem fit.