KOJACH LIMITED vs. MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD [2014]DLSC2936

Date	2014-03-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/3/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2936

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

YEBOAH JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

KWASI AFRIFA ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

ANTHONY FORSON JNR. ESQ. WITH HIM KWESI COLEMAN FOR THE DEFENDANT /APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

[2014]DLSC2936
																																						<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" >KOJACH LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MULTICHOICE GHANA&nbsp;&nbsp; LTD&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT,
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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/3/2013&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: 19TH
MARCH, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWASI AFRIFA ESQ. FOR
THE&nbsp;&nbsp; PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.<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">

ANTHONY
FORSON JNR. ESQ. WITH HIM KWESI COLEMAN FOR THE&nbsp;
DEFENDANT /APPELLANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ATUGUBA JSC
(PRESIDING), ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, YEBOAH JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS)
JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>ANIN-YEBOAH
JSC: <o:p></o:p>The facts of this
interlocutory appeal fall within a narrow compass and appear to be
uncontroverted. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/respondent/appellant herein (who shall be referred to in this appeal
simply as the plaintiff) commenced an action at the High Court (Commercial Division),
Kumasi against the defendant/appellant/respondent herein who (shall be referred
to simply as the defendant).<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff a
pharmaceutical company incorporated under the laws of Ghana alleged that it had
exclusive right to manufacture, distribute and deal in the product called “Pro
Cold” for cure of cold and sinuses. The plaintiff alleges that it had
registered the product at the Food and Drugs Board to entitle it as the
exclusive manufacturer and distributor. According to the plaintiff, a Nigeria
firm known as Orange Drugs Limited attempted to invade the Ghanaian market with
its brand of “Pro Cold” which was successfully resisted by the plaintiff. The
Nigeria firm thereafter resorted to using the defendant’s electronic
broadcasting on a gigantic scale by collusively airing and broadcasting advertisement
on “Pro Cold” at prime times before, during and after English Premiership
Leagues games which enjoy a truly wide coverage and audience.<o:p></o:p>According to the plaintiff
the “Pro Cold” which is not made or manufactured by the plaintiff has found its
way illegally into the Ghanaian market. This conduct of the defendant has
resulted in huge financial loss to the plaintiff which runs into millions of
United States Dollars. All efforts to stop the alleged illegal conduct of the
defendant prove futile.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff on 7/12/2010
issued a writ of summons together with a statement of claim and had the two
processes served on the defendant. On the writ, the plaintiff claimed several
declaratory reliefs inviting the High Court to declare that the broadcasting of
the advertisement of Pro Cold on the airwaves of the respondent was illegal
leading to consequential loss of income, and an Order of injunction to restrain
the defendant and its agents, assigns and privies from further broadcasting the
advert.<o:p></o:p>On 14/12/2010 the
plaintiff filed a motion for interlocutory injunction against the defendant
praying the trial court for an order “compelling the defendant, its agents,
assigns, representatives, workmen and technicians as well as technical officers
howsoever described to stop the broadcasting of the advertisement on “Pro Cold”
pending the final determination of the case. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff annexed
several exhibits to bolster its case to convince the trial court that several
demands made to the defendants to desist from broadcasting the advert had
proved futile.<o:p></o:p>On the very day that the
application for interlocutory injunction was filed, the defendant entered
conditional appearance. It appears from the record that no application was subsequently
filed to either set-aside the writ or the service thereof. However, the
defendant filed an affidavit in answer to oppose the application for the
interlocutory injunction, stoutly contending that it merely provides subscriber
management services for MultiChoice Africa’s DStv subscribers. For a more
detailed record the pertinent depositions in the affidavit of the defendant is
reproduced ad longum:<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The defendant says that all that
MultiChoice (Gh) Ltd. does is to provide &nbsp; subscriber
management &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; services for
MultiChoice Africa’s DStv subscribers, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; which
entails subscription fee collection services,
marketing and sales, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; technical and
installation support and the operation of a national call &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; centre – so it has no
relationship whatsoever with either the Nigerian &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Company which &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; manufactures
the offending product neither is it in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; collusion
with it to destroy plaintiff’s &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; business.<o:p></o:p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The defendant further maintain that it
has no relationship with Supersport &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; where
the advert &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; appears and thus cannot be
held liable even if the said &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; advert
were offensive to the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb</main>