AGRICULTURE DEV. BANK VRS ALI (H1/34/2020) [2022] GHACA 108 (7 July 2022)

AGRICULTURE DEV. BANK VRS ALI (H1/34/2020) [2022] GHACA 108 (7 July 2022)

The majority held that the publication, though factually stating the plaintiff was no longer employed and not authorized to transact business, carried an innuendo in the banking context that suggested misconduct, thereby defaming the plaintiff. The defendant had no policy for such disclaimers, and the publication was actuated by malice. The dissent held that the publication was true, justified, and not defamatory, and that truth is a complete defence to libel. The majority dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s finding of defamation and award of damages; the dissent would have allowed the appeal and set aside the damages.

Citation
[2022] GHACA 108
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Agriculture Development Bank; Plaintiff/respondent: Osumanu Ali
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
7 July 2022
Case Number
H1/34/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by majority; trial court judgment affirmed (majority). Dissent would have allowed the appeal and set aside damages.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Malicious Publication, Employment Contract, Parol Evidence Rule, Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Employment Law Defamation Libel Malicious Publication Employment Contract Parol Evidence Rule Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agriculture Development Bank

Defendant/appellant

Osumanu Ali

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication by the defendant was defamatory of the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the publication was malicious
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached the contract of employment or a collateral contract

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the publication, though factually stating the plaintiff was no longer employed and not authorized to transact business, carried an innuendo in the banking context that suggested misconduct, thereby defaming the plaintiff. The defendant had no policy for such disclaimers, and the publication was actuated by malice. The dissent held that the publication was true, justified, and not defamatory, and that truth is a complete defence to libel. The majority dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s finding of defamation and award of damages; the dissent would have allowed the appeal and set aside the damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by majority; trial court judgment affirmed (majority). Dissent would have allowed the appeal and set aside damages.

Orders

  • General damages of Gh¢100,000 for defamation awarded to plaintiff (affirmed by majority)
  • Exemplary damages of Gh¢500,000 for libel awarded to plaintiff (affirmed by majority)