An Accra based legal practitioner, Mr Kweku Y. Paintsil, has filed a suit at an Accra High Court
Seeking damages; including special aggravated and exemplary damages against the Receiver of Midland Savings and Loans, Mr Eric Nana Nipah for libel.
The legal practitioner is also seeking an injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by himself, his servants, or agents or otherwise, from further writing any letter or similar words defamatory of the Plaintiff and Legal costs. The following is the full affidavit accompanying his writ.
The Plaintiff was called to practice at the Ghana Bar on 6th April, 1990 and was and is at all material times a Private Legal Practitioner, Consultant and Notary Public.
Among others, the Plaintiff is the Managing Solicitor of Paintsil, Paintsil & Co., a firm of private legal practitioners.
1. The Defendant is a Chartered Accountant and was recently appointed by the Bank of Ghana as Receiver of defunct selected Micro-Finance companies in Ghana.
2. At all material times commencing from 2014 the Plaintiff had the conduct for the plaintiff in a suit, the short title of which was and is Midland Savings and Loans vrs. David Kwadwo Anim & Anor: Suit No. IRL11/14. By reason of his appointment as Receiver, the Defendant was substituted for the said plaintiff.
3. On 10th September, 2020 the Defendant wrote and published or caused to be written and published the following words contained in a typewritten letter (“the letter”), which are defamatory of the Plaintiff, to wit, – “Mr. Kweku. Y Paintsil of Paintsil & Co. (sic) does not have my instructions as the duly appointed Receiver of Midland Savings and Loans to continue with the conduct of the aforementioned case as Solicitor”.
4. The letter was dictated by the Defendant to a Secretary, or for transcription by a Secretary in the Defendant’s employment whom the Plaintiff cannot at present identify.
5. The letter was then delivered by or through various modes, including by email, hand-delivery and/or post to Gary Nimako Marfo, Solicitor for the Defendants in the said suit (No.: IRL/11/14) at Gary Nimako Marfo’s chambers.
6. The Defendant knew or ought to know that the letter was likely to be opened and read by an employee or employees of Gary Nimako Marfo’s law firm in the ordinary course of business, as in fact it was read by Gary Nimako Marfo’s administrative staff and court clerks.
7. Gary Nimako Marfo subsequently exhibited the letter in a sworn affidavit in support of an application to the High Court for an order to strike out the Plaintiff’s name as a solicitor in the said suit on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have Defendant’s instructions to represent him.
8. Within the context in which the Defendant wrote the said letter, being a response to Gary Nimako Marfo’s letter dated 9th September, 2020, the Defendant knew or ought to know that Gary Nimako Marfo would put it to a much wider circulation, including attaching it as an exhibit in court and that in so doing, the allegations contained in the letter would be circulated widely to a Commissioner For Oaths, Court Clerks and to unspecified members of the general public through the court system.
9. In their natural and ordinary meaning, the said words meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiff was guilty of legal malpractice and living in contempt of court and consequently, liable to disbarment through disciplinary proceedings.
10. By reason of the publication by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been injured in his personal and professional reputation, has undergone extreme embarrassment and hurt to his feelings, and has suffered special damage.
PARTICULARS
The Plaintiff is presently unable to quantify and/or particularize the loss he has sustained. In so far as such loss is quantifiable, the Plaintiff will serve particulars of special damage separately when they become available.
11. The said words published by the Defendant were false and were published maliciously.
PARTICULARS OF FALSITY AND MALICE
(i) There was at all material times an attempt to settle Suit No. IRL/11/14 out of court in consideration for the payment by the Defendants of the proposed sum of $1.5 million to the Plaintiff therein, out of which the Plaintiff’s estimated fees was 15%;
(ii) Prior to that, the Plaintiff had applied to the court, consequent upon a disagreement with the Defendant, for leave to withdraw as lawyer for the Plaintiff, which application was granted. However, the parties subsequently had at least two meetings, the discussions of which were captured by letters dated 30th January, 2020 and 2nd March, 2020, agreeing to re-appoint the Plaintiff to continue with the conduct of Suit No. IRL 11/14, in consequence of which the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appointment dated 10th July, 2020;
(iii) Further, by a letter dated 20th August, 2020 the Plaintiff sought the Defendant’s express approval to proceed with the settlement by approving a proposed letter of even date attached thereto;
(iv) By email of even date transmitted at 7:31pm, the Defendant gave express approval to the Plaintiff to proceed with the settlement and copied other members of Defendant’s team;
(v) By letter dated 9th September, 2020, Gary Nimako Marfo engaged in ex parte communication with the Defendant purportedly to enquire whether the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s lawyer with the continuing conduct of the suit, in response to which the Defendant authored the letter (dated 11th September, 2020);
(vi) By publishing the said words to aid Gary Nimako Marfo to apply to remove the Plaintiff as a solicitor from the Court’s record, the Defendant intended to avoid payment of the Plaintiff’s legal fees contingent upon a successful settlement; and
(vii) It is reasonably believed that the Defendant and Gary Nimako Marfo engaged in further ex parte communication, in furtherance of the grand object of denying Plaintiff his due fees upon settlement. The Plaintiff shall accordingly seek an order directed to the National Communication Authority (NCA) to submit their phone call records.
12. In the premises the Defendant published or caused to be published the said words knowing they were false or recklessly, not caring whether they were true or false, having calculated that the benefit to him of the Plaintiff being removed from the record as a lawyer in Suit No. IRL/11/14 without the payment of the Plaintiff’s fees may well outweigh any compensation payable to the Plaintiff through a defamation action.
13. By a letter dated 30th October, 2020, the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to render an unqualified apology to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant has refused to do so and allowed the effect of the false allegations to linger to date.
Wherefore, and in the circumstances, the Plaintiff seeks against the Defendant, as follows:
i. Damages, including special, aggravated and exemplary damages for libel contained in the Defendant’s letter dated 10th September, 2020;
ii. An injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by himself, his servants, or agents or otherwise, from further writing any letter or similar words defamatory of the Plaintiff; and
iii. Legal costs.
DATED AT PAINTSIL, PAINTSIL & CO., GOSHEN CHAMBERS, HOUSE NO. 26, FARRAR AVENUE, BETWEEN HOTEL PRESIDENT AND TATTERS BOUTIQUE, ADABRAKA – ACCRA, THIS 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021.
The post Lawyer Paintsil sues Midland Savings & Loans Receiver, Eric Nana Nipah for libel appeared first on The Chronicle Online.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS