The High Court has dismissed an application by Kwame Baffoe seeking to set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim filed against him in a defamation suit brought by Dr Ransford Annerty Abbey.
Justice Klorkor Okai-Mills ruled that the Defendant’s challenge to the venue of the case was improperly brought, but directed that the issue of the appropriate venue for the trial be referred to the Chief Justice for determination.
The decision was delivered in the case of Dr Ransford Annerty Abbey versus Kwame Baffoe, in which the Plaintiff is seeking damages over alleged defamatory publications made online by the Defendant.
Kwame Baffoe had entered a conditional appearance and filed an application seeking to have the Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim set aside or dismissed.
His application was based on two main arguments.
First, he argued that he resides in the Bono Region and was served through substituted service at his property in Sunyani. He contended that the Plaintiff was aware of his place of residence but commenced the action in a forum he considered inappropriate.
The Defendant argued that the case should have been initiated in a court with jurisdiction over his area of residence.
Second, he challenged the validity of the Plaintiff’s legal representation, arguing that the solicitor’s licence number endorsed on the court documents did not correspond with a valid licence issued to a lawyer authorised to practise during the 2025/2026 legal year.
He maintained that only lawyers with valid solicitor’s licences are entitled to represent parties before Ghanaian courts.
Counsel for Dr Abbey, Alex Owoo, opposed the application, arguing that the motion filed by the Defendant was procedurally flawed.
He submitted that the Defendant relied on Order 9 Rule 8 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, C.I. 47, which deals with issues including setting aside writs, service, or orders relating to service outside the jurisdiction.
According to him, that provision does not provide the proper procedure for challenging the venue of a case.
He argued that objections relating to venue must instead be raised under Order 3 Rule 2 of C.I. 47.
In her ruling, Justice Okai-Mills agreed that there was a distinction between the provisions relied upon by the Defendant.
The court held that although the Defendant had raised the venue issue within the required time, the proper legal process was not to dismiss or strike out the Plaintiff’s case.
The court noted that where a venue objection is raised, the matter should be referred to the Chief Justice to determine the appropriate place for the proceedings.
Consequently, the application seeking to set aside or dismiss the writ of summons and statement of claim was dismissed.
The High Court subsequently ordered that the matter be referred to the Chief Justice pursuant to Order 3 Rule 2 of C.I. 47 for a determination on the proper venue for hearing the case.
The ruling was delivered with the Plaintiff absent and the Defendant present in court.
