The Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial in the long-running defamation case between businessman Kennedy Ohene Agyapong and the Editor-in-Chief of the New Crusading Guide, Abdul Malik Kweku Baako Jnr.
The appellate court in their ruling on February 12, upheld an appeal filed by Kennedy Agyapong against the 2020 High Court judgment that had found him liable for defamation.
As part of its decision, the Court of Appeal has also directed Mr. Baako to refund all the money he received under the earlier judgment within 30 days.
The order for a retrial effectively resets the case, sending it back to the High Court for a fresh hearing before a new judge. Both parties will have the opportunity to present their evidence and legal arguments anew.
Speaking to journalists after the ruling, the lawyer for Ken Agyapong welcomed the decision and described it as consistent with established legal principles.
“The court is the court and the law is the law. The court can turn a blue eye to a red eye, but the Court of Appeal has followed the law from the Supreme Court. I think what they did was in the right direction,” Ken’s lawyer said.
According to the defence, the appellate court found that the High Court judgment was flawed due to a statutory breach that was fundamental and went to the core root of the case.
Background of the case
The legal dispute dates back to 2018 when Mr. Baako sued Mr. Agyapong over comments made on various media platforms.
Among other claims, the businessman was accused of alleging that the journalist was involved in illegal mining (galamsey).
In June 2020, an Accra High Court ruled in favour of Mr. Baako, awarding him GH¢100,000 in damages and GH¢30,000 in costs.
The court also ordered Mr. Agyapong to retract his statements and apologise three times on the same platforms where the defamatory comments were made.
Mr. Agyapong’s legal team subsequently appealed the decision, challenging the ruling on grounds including statutory compliance and limitation periods.
Although an earlier application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed in July 2023, the substantive appeal against the judgment has now succeeded.
