CITY OF LONDON BUSINESS COLLEGE vs. GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION GROUP AND THE BRITISH COUNCIL [2013]DLCA3628

CITY OF LONDON BUSINESS COLLEGE vs. GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION GROUP AND THE BRITISH... [2013]DLCA3628

Date	2013-07-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/33/2007
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA3628

KANYOKE J.A.(PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE J.A

ADJEI J.A.

MR. KOFI SOMUAH FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

MR. PROSPER NYAHE FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MRS. EFUA GHARTEY FOR 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2013]DLCA3628
																																						<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" >CITY&nbsp;OF
LONDON&nbsp;BUSINESS&nbsp;COLLEGE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GRAPHIC&nbsp;COMMUNICATION
GROUP AND THE BRITISH&nbsp;COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

SUIT
NO. H1/33/2007&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; &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: 11TH
JULY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. KOFI SOMUAH FOR 1ST
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>MR. PROSPER NYAHE FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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">

MRS.
EFUA GHARTEY FOR 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<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 1.0pt 0in">

KANYOKE,&nbsp;J.A.(PRESIDING) ACQUAYE, J.A. AND ADJEI,
J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">DENNIS&nbsp; ADJEI , J. A.&nbsp;:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">&nbsp;On&nbsp;8th July, 2004 the High Court Accra
gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff /Respondent&nbsp;against the
Defendants /Appellants.&nbsp; The Plaintiff Respondent was to recover the sum
of&nbsp;£ 26,892.64,&nbsp;US $ 12,000. O0 and&nbsp;¢22, 000.00&nbsp;from the
Defendants/Appellants. For the purposes of this appeal the Plaintiff /
Respondent&nbsp;would be referred to as the Plaintiff&nbsp;and the 1st&nbsp;and
the 2nd Defendants / Appellants as 1st and 2nd&nbsp;defendants respectively.
The defendants dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial High Court appealed
to this court to reverse the judgment. The 1st&nbsp;defendant&nbsp;filed its
notice of appeal on 11th August, 2004 and it set out ten (10) grounds of
appeal. The 2nd defendant also filed&nbsp;two (2) grounds of appeal in its
notice of appeal filed on&nbsp;22nd July, 2004.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> 
&nbsp;The brief facts of the case which culminated in this appeal were that the
Plaintiff, an independent school and incorporated under the Laws of England
advertised its school in Ghana for prospective students to apply for admission.
On 27th August&nbsp;2001&nbsp;the 1st&nbsp;defendant in its edition described
the&nbsp;Plaintiff as fake and it carried out that publication to warn
prospective students not to apply for admission as the school had not been
registered in the directories of Recognized&nbsp;institutions in the United
Kingdom. The 1st defendant further stated that its independent investigation
revealed that the Plaintiff's college is not registered&nbsp;and applicants who
had paid monies to it in the form of admission fees stand the risk of losing
them and those who may apply for visa and did not get would also lose any money
paid by them. On 27th&nbsp; August, 2001&nbsp; publication by the 1st Defendant
in its edition it carried out an information attributable to the 2nd Defendant
which distinguished the Plaintiff's college from City of London College which
has been accredited by the British&nbsp; Accreditation Council. It further
stated that the Plaintiff’s college had not been accredited and the earlier
publication by the 1st defendant&nbsp;was not referable to City of London
College which was a recognized accredited college.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> 
&nbsp;The plaintiff aggrieved by the two publications brought an action against
the defendants jointly and severally for defamation. The Plaintiff claimed that
because of the two publications students who had paid some monies to them
demanded for refund as the defendants had described the college as fake. 
&nbsp;I will now address the respective grounds of appeal filed by the defendants.
They are as follows: 
 
 
“The
1st defendant’s grounds of appeal are as follows:<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge erred in applying
the principles of personal injury to the instant case;<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned&nbsp; trial judge, in awarding&nbsp; to the plaintiff&nbsp; the sum of British&nbsp; Pounds&nbsp;
7,035.00 as&nbsp; refund&nbsp; to prospective&nbsp; students&nbsp;
of the plaintiff, erred by holding that&nbsp;
there was sufficient&nbsp; evidence to
connect&nbsp; the refusal of visas of
such&nbsp;&nbsp; students to the publication
complained of when&nbsp; the evidence&nbsp; rather&nbsp;
showed that the refusal&nbsp; of the
visa had nothing&nbsp; to do with the
publication;<o:p></o:p>