Court dismisses Kwame Baffoe’s bid to strike out Dr Abbey’s defamation suit

The High Court has refused to throw out a defamation suit filed by Dr Ransford Annerty Abbey against Kwame Baffoe.

Justice Klorkor Okai-Mills dismissed Mr Baffoe’s application seeking to set aside or dismiss the amended writ of summons and statement of claim in the case.

The court, however, directed that the question of where the case should properly be heard must be referred to the Chief Justice for determination.

Dr Abbey is seeking damages over alleged defamatory online publications attributed to Mr Baffoe.

Mr Baffoe had entered a conditional appearance before filing the application challenging the suit.

He argued that the action had been filed in the wrong forum because he resides in the Bono Region.

According to him, the plaintiff knew his place of residence and still commenced the case outside the area where he believes the matter should have been initiated.

He said he was served through substituted service at his property in Sunyani.

Mr Baffoe therefore contended that the case should have been brought before a court with jurisdiction over his place of residence.

He also challenged the legal representation of Dr Abbey.

He claimed that the solicitor’s licence number endorsed on the court processes did not correspond with a valid licence for a lawyer authorised to practise during the 2025/2026 legal year.

He argued that only lawyers with valid solicitor’s licences may represent parties before Ghanaian courts.

Counsel for Dr Abbey, Alex Owoo, opposed the application.

He argued that Mr Baffoe’s motion was procedurally wrong.

According to him, the defendant relied on Order 9 Rule 8 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, C.I. 47.

He said that provision deals with matters such as setting aside writs, service, and orders relating to service outside the jurisdiction, but does not provide the proper procedure for challenging venue.

Mr Owoo submitted that objections relating to venue should rather be raised under Order 3 Rule 2 of C.I. 47.

Justice Okai-Mills agreed that the rules relied on by the defendant were not the proper basis for the reliefs he sought.

The court held that although Mr Baffoe raised the venue objection within time, the appropriate remedy was not to strike out or dismiss the plaintiff’s case.

The judge said where a venue objection is raised, the matter must be referred to the Chief Justice to determine the proper place for the proceedings.

The application to set aside or dismiss the writ and statement of claim was therefore dismissed.

The court then ordered that the matter be referred to the Chief Justice under Order 3 Rule 2 of C.I. 47 for a decision on the appropriate venue for the trial.

The ruling was delivered in the absence of Dr Abbey.

Mr Baffoe was present in court.