Fmr Gender Minister’s $1.5M libel suit against ex-husband Tony Lithur dismissed, slapped with GHc5k cost
He pointed that, “one of this instances are where the matters are taken out from judicial proceedings.”
Counsel argued that, the position of the law is that, “when the matters are taken out of the judicial proceedings, they are not covered by absolute privilege.”
*Publication of divorce statements*
Counsel said, a cursory look at “our statement of pleadings, it is not about the publication of the matter in the divorce proceedings but it is about the subsequent publication in the media.
“Our complaint is not about the publication of the divorce petition in the media per se, it is about the publication and dissemination on the media and internet,” Counsel submitted.
Counsel further submitted that, “Our submission is that in so far as the defendant cause that publication outside the court proceedings, it is not caught by absolute privilege and therefore actionable, it discloses reasonable cause of action.”
*2nd Submission*
For her second submission, Counsel said on the substance of the application is that, “in the face of the 1992 Constitution any notion on common law privilege, that seeks to absolutely protect or make new any willful deliberate and malicious conduct, which denigrates a person, from action by that person to vindicate their rights, is inconsistent with and contravention of article 15(1)(2)(b).”
“A person cannot in the face of these constitutional provisions be allowed to willfully and deliberately and maliciously defame someone and to affect their dignity and reputation in the face of right thinking members in the society and seek to shield themselves under a notion of absolute privilege propounded in the 17th century,” Counsel submitted.
“We submit that such a notion of absolute privilege will be unconstitutional and to that extent null and void.
“We submit that the Plaintiff has adequately by the Statement of Claim demonstrated the existence of reasonable cause of action which this court must proceed to hear and determine.
“It is our submission that the two decisions of the two coordinates cited to you is of no binding effect and at best is of persuasive value
Counsel said, “in the Shantel Kudjawu case is not binding authority and it is not in accord with the laid down principles concerning the matters as arisen there and this court should not be led to fall into the same pit.”
“We submit that the instance application as has been shown here, is procedurally incompetent and therefore not properly before this court.
“We also state that it is substantively of no value and we prayed that the instance application be dismissed for the suit to be heard,” Counsel submitted.
Background*
On April 25, 2024, the former Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection, Nana Oye Bampoe Addo initiated the legal action against her former husband Tony Lithur for libel.
She was demanding the action filed on April 24, 2024, damages in a total sum of $1.5 million dollars.
According to Nana Oye Bampoe, her reputations has been injured by the former husband who had filed an action seeking divorce.
The two were customarily married on April 14, 1991, and the marriage was converted into ordinance marriage by the parties in January 1998 and on May 2, 2018.
Mr Lithur (defendant) then filed a petition for divorce against Nana Oye (plaintiff), which was part heard and yet to be concluded.
Nana Oye said in the divorce petition the defendant made false averments and cause the defamatory words to be published.
She is however seeking the following reliefs from the former husband.
“General damages of the Ghana Cedi equivalent forex bureau buying equivalent of USD500,000.00 (five hundred thousand dollars) for libel contained In Divorce Petition filed on 2nd May, 2018 and subsequent pleadings filed during the said Divorce Petition contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Statement of Claim as follows:
“Exemplary damages of the Ghana Cedi forex buying equivalent of $1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) for libel particulars of which are contained in relief (a).
“A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant jointly and severally either by himself and or his assign(s) from further making any averments or publishing or causing to be published, the said defamatory words or similar words.
“A retraction and apology to be published on social media including on Defendant’s facebook wall, the website of Lithurbrew & Company, the twitter and Instagram handles of Defendant, and all his social media handles and on the website of the Ghanaweb together with the website of Joyfm, Peacefm and Citi fm.)
