Duffour Vrs Bank Of Ghana & Anor [2022] GHASC 36 (9 February 2022)

Duffour Vrs Bank Of Ghana & Anor [2022] GHASC 36 (9 February 2022)

The publication did not have a defamatory meaning as 'right-thinking members of society' would not interpret 'dismissal' versus 'termination' as damaging to reputation. Even if the words bore a defamatory meaning, the publication was privileged as it was made in the public interest and there was no evidence of malice to defeat the defence of qualified privilege.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 36
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Benjamin Duffour; 1st Defendant: Bank of Ghana; 2nd Defendant/appellant/respondent: Graphic Communications Group Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
9 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Justification, Malice, Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Law Media Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Justification Malice 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Duffour

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Bank of Ghana

1st Defendant

Graphic Communications Group Ltd.

2nd Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication was defamatory of the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the defendant can set up a defence of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether there was evidence of malice to dislodge the defence

Ratio Decidendi

The publication did not have a defamatory meaning as 'right-thinking members of society' would not interpret 'dismissal' versus 'termination' as damaging to reputation. Even if the words bore a defamatory meaning, the publication was privileged as it was made in the public interest and there was no evidence of malice to defeat the defence of qualified privilege.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed