Charter House Ghana has opposed the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process in a defamation suit between it and Charles Nii Amarli Mensah aka Shatta Wale, an Artiste.
Charter House said it preferred that the defamation suit goes on at the Court instead of using the offices of MUSIGA for the ADR process to settle the matter.
Mr Egbert Faibille counsel for Charter House Ghana made this known soon after the court?s sittings.
During the court sitting, Mr Peter Zwennes, who represented Shatta Wale, said they had received an affidavit in opposition to Charter House?s response in respect of the ADR application filed by Shatta.
Mr Zwennes, therefore, prayed the court to give them time to respond to the affidavit in opposition.
The court presided over by Justice Naa Adoley Azu obliged and adjourned the matter to December 1.
Meanwhile, the court is expected to rule on application for default judgment in respect of the case on November 20.
Charter House and Mr. Iyoila Ayoade had gone to court in relation to four separate videos they alleged were defamatory and uploaded on social media platforms by Shatta Wale.
Shatta Wale was represented by his father Mr Charles Mensah Senior .
On October 20, this year, the court prevented Shatta Wale from repeating four videos in relation to Charter House.
The court further restrained him from making new videos and pasting on his Facebook page concerning Charter House and its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Ayoade.
This followed the granting of an interlocutory injunction filed by Charter House and its CEO in the court presided over by Justice Naa Adoley Azu.
Charter House and Mr Ayoade had gone to court in relation to four separate videos they alleged were defamatory and uploaded on social media platforms.
The two Plaintiffs were praying the court to declare that the Dancehall King had defamed them with the four separate videos he recorded and uploaded to his Facebook page.
According to the plaintiffs, two of the said videos were uploaded on September 23 and September 24.
The Plaintiffs are also praying the court to order Shatta Wale to render ?an unqualified apology and retraction of each of the four separate videos with the approval by the Plaintiffs prior to the recording and uploading? to his Facebook page and to remain on his page for one month within a week of the judgment.
The Plaintiffs again sought the court for an ?order of perpetual injunction retraining the Defendant, his agents, hirelings, manager(s), privies and assigns or any person through him and howsoever described from making and/or repeating the defamatory statements or similar statements in the nature of the ones complained in the video recordings.?
The Plaintiffs are also demanding that Shatta Wale send apology in respect of the four videos to all media houses and online media that he aired the defamatory videos complained of and ensure that same and/or published at his own expense.