High Court dismisses GH¢800,000 lawsuit against The Herald and others in seven-year trial

An Accra High Court has dismissed the GH¢800,000 lawsuit filed by former Director of Finance of Intercity STC Coaches Limited, Nuhu I Jansbaka, against The Herald and two others, after nearly seven years of trial.

Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, in her judgment, dismissed claims of malice and rebuked the Managing Editor of The Herald and the paper's publishers, Prime Mark Company Limited.

She emphasized the need for individuals in positions of trust to be prepared for a higher level of scrutiny and stated, "It is high time that persons occupying public positions are held by stricter standards."

The lawyers representing The Herald, led by David Annan of Nii Odoi Annan & Co, Asere Chambers, declined to seek costs against Mr. Jansbaka.

The case against Mr. Jansbaka stemmed from severe criticism he faced during his tenure as Head of Finance and Administration at STC Coaches Limited between 2012 and 2013. Colleagues accused him of profiting from the workers' provident fund and engaging in conflict of interest. A series of petitions and demonstrations were launched against him, leading to his interdiction and subsequent investigations by committees.

The committees found adverse findings, comments, and recommendations against Mr. Jansbaka, including the confirmation that he had paid himself GH¢13,019.67 from the workers' provident fund. He also received excessive traveling allowances and illegal extra duty payments.

Despite the negative findings, Mr. Jansbaka was reinstated and later brought legal action against The Herald, its publishers, and two union leaders, Samuel Korle Clotey and Hope Kofi Klu, claiming defamation and seeking GH¢200,000 each.

However, in her ruling, Justice Kocuvie-Tay stated that Mr. Jansbaka failed to establish a connection between Mr. Korle Clotey, Mr. Klu, Larry Dogbey (publisher) , and Prime Mark Ghana Limited (publisher) regarding the publication of the defamatory statements. She emphasized the requirement for sufficient evidence to support a party's claim.

Justice Kocuvie-Tay further noted that the use of "chop chop" in The Herald's publications, though harsh, constituted fair comment and did not exhibit malice. She concluded that the plaintiff's claims of defamation against the 1st and 2nd defendants were not sufficiently proven but acknowledged a valid claim of defamation against the 3rd and 4th defendants.

YNA/KPE