<p class="mb-5" id="contentDlCitation" hidden>[2012]DLCA3172</p> <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" ><span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">KOJACH LIMITED<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;"> [COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]</span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/73/2011 </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">DATE: 30</span><sup><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">TH</span></sup><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> MARCH, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">ANTHONY FORSON JNR ESQ.FOR DEFT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">AKWASI AFRIFA ESQ.FOR PLAINTIFF/RESSPONDENT. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">MARIAMA OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING), F.G. KORBIEH J.A., IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS.) J.A.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoTitle" align="center" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoTitle" align="center" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p><span style="text-decoration-line: none;"> </span></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">The plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to only as the respondent) sued the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to only as the appellant) in the Commercial Division of the High Court, Kumasi for several reliefs amongst which was an order for injunction to restrain the appellant, its agents, assigns, privies, representative and those acting on its direction or behest from, in any manner, continuing to broadcast and advertise “ProCold” not manufactured or distributed by the respondent and to desist from bringing “ProCold” not manufactured by the respondent unto the Ghanaian market and to ensure the swift removal and recovery of the product already unleashed unto the market. The case of the respondent, as disclosed in its statement of claim, may be summarized as follows: the respondent is a pharmaceutical company which is the sole distributor in Ghana of a medication used for the potent cure of colds and sinuses registered as “ProCold”. A Nigerian company called Orange Drugs Ltd. had attempted to invade the Ghanaian market with its brand of “ProCold” but the attempt had been warded off successfully by the respondent. The said Nigerian company had then resorted to the use of the appellant’s electronic broadcasting system by collusively broadcasting advertisements,at prime time,of the Nigerian company’s “ProCold” which the appellant had ‘collusively’ brought illegally into the Ghanaian market. This had not boded well for the continued existence of the respondent company as the respondent had suffered huge financial losses. And that had been caused by the effectiveness of the appellant’s advertisements which had ‘saturated and inundated the Ghanaian airwaves’. The respondent was therefore entitled to the exemplary and punitive damages claimed by the respondent against the appellant. Exactly seven days after the issuance of the writ, the respondent filed a motion on notice for an order to restrain the appellant from continuing to broadcast the advertisement complained about as this was an infringement of the respondent’s exclusive right to the use of the brand name and the sale of the product and to direct the appellant to take the necessary steps to withdraw the illicit product from the Ghanaian market pending the hearing of the suit itself. The motion paper was accompanied by an affidavit in support in which the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent company repeated some of averments in the respondent’s statement of claim and further deposed to the following, among others; that despite receiving a letter from the respondent as well as the writ of summons, the appellant had continued the illegal broadcasts thus causing ‘further financial perdition to the plaintiff’; that in spite of a publication in the “Daily Graphic” warning the general public, the rampant advertisement by the appellant had denuded the publication in the “Daily Graphic” of any effect; that the appellant intended to ‘flaunt its illegality unless restrained by’ the court and that the grant of the application for interim injunction would accord with justice whilst a refusal would irreparably damnify the respondent. On the very day that the respondent filed its motion for interim injunction, the appellant’s solicitor’s filed a notice of conditional appearance to the writ of summons. It also filed an affidavit in opposition to the application for interim injunction. In the affidavit in opposition, the General Manager of the appellant company deposed as follows, among other things: that the assertion by the respondent that the appellant had been flighting an advertisement of a Nigerian brand of “ProCold” was false as the appellant was not in the business of broadcasting; that all that the appellant does ‘is to provide subscriber management services for “MultiChoice” Africa’s DStv subscribers, which entails subscription fee collection services, marketing and sales, technical and installation support and the operation of a national call centre – so it has no relationship whatsoever with either the Nigerian company which manufactures the offending product neither is it in collusion with it to destroy the plaintiff’s business’; that it had ‘no relationship with “SuperSport” where the advert appears and thus cannot be held liable’, that it had no interest in any pharmaceutical product nor its distribution; that the respondent had sued the wrong person and so the whole action ought to be dismissed. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">After the motion had been argued for and on behalf of the two sides by counsel for the parties, both in the form of the filing of statements of case and the submission of viva voce addresses to the trial court, the court gave its ruling in which it held that the respondent had a right that needed to be protected. It also held that the appellant was the proper person to be sued because it ‘accept[ted] the Defendant’s argument that it re-transmits for MultiChoice Africa Limited’ and that ‘[T]he infringing advertisement could not have been re-transmitted in Ghana without the involvement or assistance of the defendant company.’ The trial court therefore ordered the appellant not to ‘re-transmit SuperSport channel 203 via MultiChoice Africa “DStv” service until the infringing advertisement on ProCold 4 Flu tablet is blocked pending the final determination of this suit.’ It is this ruling that the appellant has appealed against on the following grounds of appeal:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:27.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">The learned judge erred in making a finding that MultiChoice (Gh) Limited “re-transmits” “DStv” serv</main>
