…Slapped With GH¢3,000 Cost
An Accra High has struck out the writ of summons filed by lawyers of Mr. Eric Adjei, the Chief Executive of the National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (NEIP) in a defamation suit brought against Mr. Prince Prah, Editor of the DAYBREAK Newspaper.
Ruling on a motion on notice to strike out the writ of summons brought by Mr Eric Osei-Mensah, Esq of Amoakwa-Boadu & Osei-Mensah Law Consult, Counsel for the Defendant, the court on the 27th day of April, 2026, ruled that indeed the said Writ of Summons of the Plaintiff offends Order 57 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 and was not properly before the Court.
Order 57 Rule 2 states that “Before a writ is issued in an action for libel it shall be endorsed with a statement giving sufficient particulars of the publication in respect of which the action is brought to enable them to be identified.”
Agreeing with Mr Osei-Mensah, Justice Benard Bentil stated that it is mandatory to give sufficient particulars of the publication complained of in the writ of summons itself, to enable the Defendant to know the case against him.
His Lordship further agreed that the requisite particulars must include not just offending words complained of but also the date and issue of the said Newspaper.
The omission of these specific particulars from the Plaintiff’s writ were ruled as fatal to the Plaintiff’s claim. His Lordship accordingly struck out the writ of summons of the Plaintiff and awarded a cost GH¢3,000 against the Plaintiff and in favour of Mr Prince Prah.
The application to strike out the Plaintiff’s writ of summons was made on two legs, thus lack of capacity of the Defendant to be sued on what is cited as the acts of the DAYBREAK Newspaper, a product of company and for offending Order 57 rule 2.
In arguing the first leg, the Lawyer of the Defendant argued that the law and the rules of the Court require parties to a suit to be clothed with capacity to sue or be sued. Counsel further argued that the Defendant was only being sued because according to paragraph 2 of the Plaintiff’s statement of claim, he is the person in charge the DAYBREAK Newspaper publications both in print and online.
Relying on authorities such as Republic v. Accra High Court, Ex Parte Aryeetey, Counsel argued that every challenge to capacity puts the validity of the writ in issue. Counsel argued that the publishing company has its own legal capacity to sue and be sued and that the proper person to be sued in this case is the company in charge of the Newspaper and not the Defendant therein. Counsel went on to urge on the court to strike out the writ of summons on the basis of lack of capacity.
Counsel for the Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that the publishing company of DAYBREAK Newspaper has only registered its business name under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1962 (Act 151) which does not insulate the proprietor and in effect, the acts of the said company must be treated as acts of a sole proprietor.
Ruling on the first leg, His Lordship was of the view that the plaintiff has stated in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim that the Defendant is the Editor in Chief of DAYBREAK Newspaper and by law an Editor can be sued for defamatory publications.
His Lordship therefore disagreed with Mr. Osei-Mensah on the question of capacity. His Lordship, however, agreed that the second leg succeeds as the writ of summons offended Order 57 rule 2.
While Mr. Prah was in Court, the Plaintiff was absent from court without any excuse.
