Professor Adekolu Vrs University For Development Studies and Another [2014] GHASC 151 (19 March 2014)

Professor Adekolu Vrs University For Development Studies and Another [2014] GHASC 151 (19 March 2014)

The Supreme Court held that the 2nd defendant's memorandum was defamatory, published with malice, and not protected by privilege. The words used were false, injurious, and calculated to damage the plaintiff's reputation as a professor. The Court enhanced the damages for defamation and upheld the awards for wrongful termination and costs, holding both defendants jointly liable.

Citation
[2014] GHASC 151
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Professor E. O. Adekolu; 1st Defendant/respondent: University for Development Studies, Tamale; 2nd Defendant/respondent: S. M. Kuuire, Central Administration, University for Development Studies, Tamale
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages for defamation enhanced; other awards upheld.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Termination, Defamation, Damages, University Governance
Source Language
English
Employment Law Tort Law Wrongful Termination Defamation Damages University Governance

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor E. O. Adekolu

Plaintiff/appellant

University for Development Studies, Tamale

1st Defendant/respondent

S. M. Kuuire, Central Administration, University for Development Studies, Tamale

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the plaintiff's contract was wrongful and ultra vires
  2. 2 Whether the memorandum authored by the 2nd defendant was defamatory
  3. 3 Quantum of damages for wrongful termination and defamation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the 2nd defendant's memorandum was defamatory, published with malice, and not protected by privilege. The words used were false, injurious, and calculated to damage the plaintiff's reputation as a professor. The Court enhanced the damages for defamation and upheld the awards for wrongful termination and costs, holding both defendants jointly liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages for defamation enhanced; other awards upheld.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay GH¢5,000.00 as damages for wrongful termination to the plaintiff.
  • Defendants to pay GH¢20,000.00 as damages for defamation to the plaintiff.