High Court stops Martin Kpebu from “stealing” a yet-to-be published law book

High Court presided over by Justice Kwaku Ackaah-Boafo, a Justice of the Court of Appeal siting with additional responsibility as a high court judge, has in a judgement, stopped private legal practitioner and political commentator, Martin Kpebu, from claiming sole ownership of a yet to be published book entitled “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana”.

The court also awarded nominal general damages of GHc 10,000.00 for breach of contract and cost of GHc 20,000.00 against Martin Kpebu in favour of the applicant in the case, Mr Fred Kusim Awindaogo, also a lawyer in private practice.

According the 5 April 2023 judgement cited by Asaase News, the suit is numbered GJ 429 2020 and entitled Fred Kusim Awindaogo (plaintiff) versus Martin Luther Kpebu (1st defendant) and Josephine Tekpertey (2nd defendant).

Plaintiff’s contention
Justice Ackaah Boafo in the introductory part of his 54-page judgement observed that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are both lawyers and are before the court over who has the ownership and copyright of a book titled “Annotated Evidence Law of Ghana”.

“While it is not disputed that the plaintiff is the one who mooted the idea and invited the 1st defendant to join him to actualize the dream, it is the case of the 1st defendant (Martin Luther Kpebu) that the plaintiff lacks the intellectual ability to write a book as an author and according to him (Martin Luther Kpebu), he “re-wrote all the work done by the plaintiff’ and therefore the final work is his handiwork alone and not a joint authorship.

“In my view this court is called upon to deal with such issues as copyright and the allegation of breach of the agreement executed by the parties and the allegation of bad faith by the 1st defendant (Martin Luther Kpebu), Justice Ackaah Boafo wrote in his judgement”.

Reliefs sought
The plaintiff, Fred Kusim Awindaogo, essentially asked for 12 reliefs in total from the court in his suit.

He asked the court for “a declaration that by the combined effect of the entire course of dealing between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, coupled with the agreement dated by the 1st defendant as 18 January 2018 and titled “Author Collaboration Agreement” and executed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are joint/co-authors of all that work, however subsequently described but initially given the tentative title Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana” that would annotate the Evidence Act of Ghana, 1975 (NRCD 323).

Secondly, “a declaration that the conduct of the 1st defendant in seeking to remove the plaintiff’s name from the work/book described at paragraph 4 and 5 of the statement of claim and referred to in relief (a) above is unconscionable, unfair, dishonest and/or coloured by bad faith, and therefore the same is inequitable and a breach (both actual and anticipatory) of the agreement dated by the 1st defendant as January 18, 2018 and titled “Author Collaboration Agreement” and executed between the Plaintiff and the 1st defendant”.

Thirdly, “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from ever claiming to be, holding himself out as or allowing himself to be held out as the sole author of all that work (or the book) described at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of claim, tentatively, titled “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana”, or howsoever subsequently described that would annotate the Evidence Act of Ghana, 1975 (NRCD 323)”.

Fourthly, “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants acting by themselves either individually or in concert, or otherwise acting by their agents, assigns, hirelings, collaborators or any other person, howsoever described, from printing, publishing, endeavouring to print or to publish as the sole author without the plaintiff, of all that work (or the book) described at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of claim, tentatively titled “Annotated Evidence Act Of Ghana” or howsoever subsequently described that would annotate the Evidence Act of Ghana, 1975 (NRCD 323)”.

Fifthly, “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants acting by themselves either in dividually or in concert or otherwise acting by their agents, assigns, hirelings, collaborators or any other person, howsoever described, from circulating by any means (manual, electronic or otherwise); or engaging in any act aimed at furthering the same outcome as the sole author without acknowledging the Plaintiff as co-author of all that work (or the book) described at paragraph 4 and 5 of the statement of claim, tentatively titled “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana” or howsoever subsequently described, that would annotate the Evidence Act of Ghana, 1975 (NRCD 323)”.

By court
Justice Ackaah Boafo’s court granted all the five reliefs as prayed by the plaintiff in his action. The court further ordered that the book “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana,” is a joint effort of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and both parties are joint owners and authors of the said book;

“Upon being satisfied that, the book the subject matter of this suit was jointly authored by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the final manuscript shall be published in their joint names further to the terms of the agreement signed” the court ordered.

“If for whatever reasons, the 1st defendant is unwilling and/or not ready to have the book published in the joint names, the plaintiff is at liberty to publish same on his own” Justice Kweku Ackaah Boafo’s court further ordered in the judgement.