FRED KUSIM AWINDAOGO vs. MARTIN LUTHER KPEBU AND JOSEPHINE TEKPERTEY [2023]DLHC15031

Date	2023-04-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ/429/2020
DL Citation No.	[2023]DLHC15031

• HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO

• A. HALAALI NCHUAKUNG FOR THE PLAINTIFF – PRESENT

• 1ST DEFENDANT - SELF-REPRESENTED

• BEN SEVOR WITH MARCELINUS BIAH FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT- PRESENT

[2023]DLHC15031
 <div class="restriction-wrapper">
 <div class="container-lg">
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-lg-12 restricted-content">
 <div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
 <div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
 <img class=""
 src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
 alt="Subscription based content">
 </div>
 </div>
 <a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
 class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
 style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
 Login to Read Full Case </a>
 
 
 </div>
 </div>
 </div>
 </div>
 <main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >FRED KUSIM AWINDAOGO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MARTIN LUTHER KPEBU AND JOSEPHINE TEKPERTEY&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION),
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO: GJ/429/2020&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 4TH APRIL 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>A. HALAALI NCHUAKUNG FOR THE PLAINTIFF –
PRESENT&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>1ST DEFENDANT - SELF-REPRESENTED<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;Kweku
T. Ackaah-Boafo, JA [Sitting as Additional High Court
Judge]<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction:<o:p></o:p>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The desire of the Plaintiff, a lawyer to contribute to the
study of the Law of Evidence in Ghana by publishing a book based on the Evidence Act, NRCD 323, 1975, unintentionally,
no doubt, is now making&nbsp;a&nbsp;contribution to
the development&nbsp;of&nbsp;commercial litigation
law in the field&nbsp;of&nbsp;intellectual
property.&nbsp; What has happened is that the learned colleague he contacted
(1st Defendant) to collaborate with him as co-author is now engaged in battle
for the heart and soul of the book conceived and ready to be birthed.&nbsp; The
1st Defendant in fact claims exclusive paternity of the book.&nbsp; The
Plaintiff on the other hand, conceptualizes the book to be&nbsp;a&nbsp;joint effort.&nbsp; The manner in which their
dispute is to be resolved therefore is the subject matter of this litigation,
and that is what is now before this Court. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Farwell,
J in the old case of Donoghue v. Allied Newspaper Ltd. [1938] Ch. 106 stated that “there
is no ownership in ideas, but copyright provides a property interest to the
person who puts the idea into written form”. The purpose of copyright law,
therefore, is not to protect the ideas or opinions expressed by the creator,
but rather it is to protect the various means and forms by which those ideas
are communicated. To that extent, it is my opinion that copyright law is a
matter of public policy to ensure that the work and intellectual ideas of
individuals are protected. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Canadian Supreme Court case of Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du
Petit Champlain Inc., 2002 SCC 34 held that copyright is a creature of an Act, being the Copyright Act
and it is a “balance between, on the one hand, promoting the public
interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and
intellect and, on the other hand, ensuring that the creator of a work obtains a
just reward and preventing others from appropriating the creator’s just
reward”. In effect, by copyright right laws, innovation and creativity are to
be protected in our competitive world.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[4]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are both lawyers and are
before this Court over who has the ownership and copyright of a book titled “Annotated Evidence Law of Ghana”. While
it is not disputed that the Plaintiff is the one who mooted the idea and
invited the 1</main>