C.F.A.O. vs. ARCHIBOLD [1964]DLSC1885

Date	1964-02-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1885

SARKODEE-ADDO C.J

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

BLAY J.S.C.

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NII ODOI-ANNAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1885
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-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" >C.F.A.O.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ARCHIBOLD <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 718<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
28 FEBRUARY 1964.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

NII ODOI-ANNAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SARKODEE-ADDO C.J., ADUMUA-BOSSMAN AND BLAY
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is against a final judgment dated 17 June 1963, and a consequential
interlocutory judgment dated 26 June 1963 by the High Court, Accra, whereby the
court upheld the plaintiff’s claim for damages and other reliefs for
infringement by the defendant company (hereinafter called the company) of the
said plaintiff’s copyright in certain musical works or songs, twelve in number,
the names or titles of which were set out in the statement of claim. The court
made a finding that the company produced 5,000 records each of the twelve
songs, i.e. a total of 60,000 records, and sold the same at three shillings
each amounting to £G91,000, and it awarded that sum (£G9,000) as special
damages, in addition to a sum of £G1,000 for general damages. The court further
granted an order of perpetual injunction as claimed.<o:p></o:p>The claim
on the writ was in the following:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(a) The
plaintiff’s claim is for £G5,000 [later amended to £G12,000] damages for
infringement of copyright in musical works. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) An
account of all the records made and sold by the defendants and payment to the
plaintiff at the rate of 3s. per record made or sold by the defendants. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(c)
Perpetual injunction against the defendants, their agents and servants from
continuing the said infringement.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The following
was the short statement of claim filed to supplement the writ:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(1)
Plaintiff is the author of musical works, entitled [the names or titles of
twelve songs were here set out] and the owner of the copyright therein and of
the sole right of performing such works in public. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) The
defendants have infringed the plaintiff’s said right by having recorded the
said musical works on gramophone records and selling the said records to the
public without the consent of the plaintiff first had and obtained.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;(3) The defendants intend, unless restrained
from so doing, to continue the said recording and sales of plaintiff’s said
musical works. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(4) The
plaintiff claims as per writ of summons.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By the
statement of defence filed on behalf of the company, the substantial defence
was a denial of all the allegations of fact contained in the statement of
claim, and an averment that the plaintiff was put to a strict proof of the said
allegations in the statement of claim. Subsequently, however, notice was filed
and served to raise the following additional plea in defence, “The defendants
will further contend at the trial that this action is statute-barred.” In due
course, with the leave of the court, this latter plea was admitted as an
amended additional plea in the statement of defence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>