Regional

Apeatu suit: Serve Net 2 TV presenter by substitution – Court orders

An Accra High Court has ordered that Net 2 Television Presenter Justice Kweku Annan be served by substitution in the suit filed against him by ex-Inspector-General of Police (IGP) David Asante-Apeatu.

This is after it emerged that the presenter has deliberately been evading service.

The court ordered that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim together with the order be served on Defendant by substituted service by posting copies of the process in the following manner;

*On the Notice Board of the High Court, General Jurisdiction, Accra

*By posting copies on the Defendant’s place of work – Net 2 TV, Hollywood building, Madina

*By a publication in the New Crusading Guide Newspaper.

  • All processes shall remain posted for 10 days.

It is further ordered that photos of the bailiff posting copies on the premises of Defendant’s place of work shall be taken and include as part of the proof of service of the process.

Clik for the court order

The former IGP David Asante-Apeatu, sued Net-2 TV presenter, Justice Kweku Annan who’s the host of a popular talk show known as ‘The Seat’ for defamation.

Kweku Annan is said to have claimed 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 addition, he alleged that Mr. Asante-Apeatu is/was on the payroll of top criminals in Ghana, and had refused to cause the arrest and prosecution of these criminals.

Not only that, the TV Presenter accused the former IGP of working in cahoots with hardened international criminals to unleash terror on Ghanaians.

But the plaintiff in his writ avers that the accusations are figments of the defendant’s imagination, ‘utterly false’, hence his lawsuit.

According to the former IGP, the TV presenter mischievously calculated the allegations in a manner that was to damage his reputation and cause him public disaffection.

“Former IGP, Mr. David Apeatu’s administration you know these men whose names I am about to mention. You know them. What did he do? What did you do? I say that you know these notorious armed robbers whose names I am about to mention. Why haven’t you been able to arrest them. Former IGP you know this. What have you done, what did you do. Mr.Apeatu, I say you know these people”, extract of the defandant’s broadcasted and published defamatory of the plaintiff read.

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.

citinewsroom

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *