Lawyer Kpebu not sole owner of “Annotated Evidence Law of Ghana” but jointly owned-Court says

It was a fact undisputed that while the plaintiff, a Ghanaian lawyer based in Geneva, Fred Awindaogo perceived the dream of writing the book in 2016, he invited the first defendant, Kpebu Martin, a well-known lawyer in Ghana to join him in actualizing the same.

However, it was the case of Mr. Kpebu that the plaintiff lacks the intellectual ability to write a book as an author as such he re-wrote all the work done by him and thus owned the final work solely but not jointly with the plaintiff.

This follows disagreements and disputes that arose between the parties owing to the publication of the final manuscript.

Suit

Dissatisfied by the events, Fred Awindaogo sued Martin Kpebu at the High Court in Accra averring that he had started writing the said book with the help of some research assistants even before he brought Martin Kpebu somewhere in 2017.

He added that later when the first defendant agreed to work together with him, they both agreed on the approach and the structure of the book which they communicated to the research assistants who they hired to work at their new office at the World Trade Centre in Accra.

Additionally, it was the case of the plaintiff, that he was able to get Mr. Kpebu to sign a formal written agreement relative to the work after his numerous insistence.

By the terms of this agreement, the plaintiff noted that his name was to appear first while Mr. Kpebu’s name will follow on the book.

He noted that however after the final manuscript had been done, Mr. Kpebu held onto it but later released the work for typesetting and for the ‘Foreword to be written only after he had insisted.

However, the plaintiff said that after this moment, the Ist defendant sought to refer to himself as the ‘Lead Author” contrary to their agreement signed and subsequently resorted to acts of bad faith.

Fred averred that Mr. Kpebu altered the agreed structure of the book and claimed to be the sole and lead author thereof.

Later, the plaintiff noted that after complaining about the Ist defendant’s approach in writing a letter to the Council for Law Reporting, the Ist defendant said he could n longer work together with him.

The plaintiff thus sought among others a declaration that he and the defendants are joint/co-authors of the final work of the book.

Ist Defendant's case

It was the case of Mr. Kpebu that before the execution of the Author Collaboration Agreement(ACA), they agreed that he would annotate sections 1-50 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) while the plaintiff would be responsible for sections 51-181. 

Per the above, he insisted that the work was envisaged as distinguishable, remained distinguishable, and has been distinguished by the plaintiff and thus he, the plaintiff cannot be described as an author of the work done. 

Judgment

In the court’s judgment by Justice Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo J.A., it was established per the Author Collaboration Agreement(ACA) that the words used in the agreement are clear and unequivocal that the parties intended to have work done in both names and to be jointly owned and thus held the Ist defendant’s suggestion as flawed.

Additionally, on the termination of the agreement by Mr. Kpebu, the court held the contention as an afterthought that was not based on the evidence.

Also, the court held on the issue of whether the book is owned jointly or solely, that Plaintiff contributed sufficient originality and expression to claim joint authorship of the book and rejected the 1st Defendant’s position that the final manuscript is his work. It was thus reiterated that the work done cannot be distinguished and therefore the final manuscript is a work of joint authorship.

Moreover, on the change of the order of the names of the authors on the book by the Ist defendant contrary to the agreement, the court held the same as unjust and unfair.

Also, Mr. Kpebu’s decision to “shred all the work save 25 cases” was held as not only “unfair, inequitable and a breach of the collaborative spirit envisaged in the Author Collaboration Agreement” but very arrogant and unacceptable.

In the end, the court declared both parties as joint owners of the book save for the first defendant’s sole decision not to be part of the book any longer.

The court also awarded a cost of GHȻ20,000.00 against the 1st Defendant and GHȻ5,000.00 against the 2nd Defendant. 

Subscribe to Dennislaw to read full judgment