GEORGE BOSOMPIM AND NII LANTE KUMI-BRUCE vs. TV3 NETWORK LIMITED AND EVANS KUMI WADEWOR [2016]DLHC4262

GEORGE BOSOMPIM AND NII LANTE KUMI-BRUCE vs. TV3 NETWORK LIMITED AND EVANS KUMI... [2016]DLHC4262

Date	2016-10-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IPR/11/2013
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC4262

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU

MR. OWUSU AWUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

MS. EDITH AKIWUMI WITH HER JENNIFER ADJETEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[2016]DLHC4262
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">GEORGE BOSOMPIM AND NII LANTE KUMI-BRUCE<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>TV3 NETWORK LIMITED AND EVANS KUMI
WADEWOR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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.
IPR/11/2013&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;DATE: 31ST
OCTOBER, 2016 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. OWUSU AWUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS <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">

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU,
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Until the year 2013,
the 1st plaintiff was an employee of the Gama Film Company Limited
which had produced a television series known as Barber and Shoeshine Boy (BNS).
This television series was being shown on the 1st defendant’s television
network known as TV3. It so happened that when Gama was divested in the year
2013, the 1st defendant needed the continuous production of the television
series BNS, so, according to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant entered into an
arrangement with the plaintiffs to continue with the production of the series
for a fee of GH₵7,000 per episode
that was produced. <o:p></o:p>After a while, the
1st defendant abrogated the contract with the plaintiffs for the production of
the television series BNS and then engaged the 2nd defendant to produce the
series. The 2nd defendant who then started producing the series did not
acknowledge the plaintiffs in the television series subsequently produced. The
plaintiffs claim that the concept, content and the music of Barber and the
Shoeshine Boy was created and developed by them and that the actions of the
defendants amounted to an infringement of their copyright and a plagiarism of
their work. The defendants deny the plaintiffs’ allegations.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Therefore by a writ of summons issued on the 11th day of
October, 2013 the plaintiffs claim against the defendants<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; border: none;">A declaration that the defendants are
 infringing the copyright and plagiarizing the work of the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; border: none;">Special damages of GH₵7,000 per episode aired since the
 abrogation of the contract between the parties herein.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; border: none;">General damages for plagiarism and for
 infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; border: none;">Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents,
 servants, privies personal representatives from having anything or
 interfering with plaintiffs’ work.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>An appearance was
entered on behalf of the defendants and a statement of defence filed after the
service of the writ and its accompanying statement of claim. In their amended
statement of defence, the 1st defendant counterclaims against the
plaintiffs for: <o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">A declaration that
 1st defendant is the owner of the copyright in the audiovisual
 work known as ‘Barber and Shoeshine Boy’ television series.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">An order of
 perpetual injunction restraining plaintiffs, their agents, assigns and
 workmen from holding themselves out or o</main>