Order for substituted service has been served on Net-2 TV presenter, Justice Kweku Annan for defamation.
Former Inspector-General of Police (IGP), David Asante-Apeatu, sued the Net-2 TV presenter last month for claiming on the June 16, 2021, edition of his show that, the former IGP is a fence for notorious Ghanaian and Nigerian criminals and harbours the criminals.
In a new development, an order for substituted service has been approved by the court.
The order from the Superior Court of Judicature in the High Court of Justice, General Jurisdiction Division Accra, states that “upon reading the affidavit of Francisca Agyekumwaa Adu of unnumbered house, Oyarifa, Accra a lawyer in the firm of Cromwell Gray LLP, solicitor for the plaintiff/ applicant filed on 26th July 2021 in support of Motion Ex-Parte for an order for substituted services.”
“It is hereby ordered that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim together with this order be served on the Defendant by Substituted service by posting copies of the process in the following manner;”
a. On the Notice Board of the High Court, General Jurisdiction, Accra.
b. By posting copies on Defendant’s place of work – NET 2 TV, Hollywood building, Madina.
c. By a publication in the “The New Crusading Guide” Newspaper.
“All processes shall remain posted for 10 days,” it directed.
It further ordered for photos of the Bailiff posting copies on the premises of the defendant’s place of work to be taken and included as part of the proof of service of the processes.
Plaintiffs support of claim for aggravated damages
The former police chief who sued per his lawful attorney particularly stated as follows:
The defendant published the words complained of knowing they were false, or recklessly as to their truth or falsity – having calculated that the benefit to the defendant in his vocation as a TV presenter – by way of popularity and increased viewership-base and following as a result of the sensational publication-would outweigh any compensation payable to the plaintiff.
That the defendant knew that once he made the publication, it would be reproduced on the websites of the various media platforms including social media, and access to countless numbers of people worldwide.
Also, the defendant knew and intended that his publication of the words complained of should be so published and./or such publication was the natural and probable consequence of his publication.
The defendant transmitted and/or caused the publication to be published on Net2 TV’s YouTube and Facebook accounts which the defendant has left to open access to an unquantifiable number of users globally of the internet on the world wide web.
Consequently, it can be inferred that a large, unquantifiable number of users have watched and are watching the defendant’s publication of the plaintiff and that the defendant was malicious in his publication of the words complained of.
Reliefs
The plaintiff is therefore seeking the following reliefs:
1. General damages for libel contained in the defendant’s publication of the plaintiff.
2. Aggravated damages arising from libel published by the defendant of the plaintiff
3. Costs, including lawyers’ fees.