Shatta Wale
Shatta Wale

A FAST track high court in Accra has upheld the case of interlocutory injunction brought by Charterhouse and its CEO Mr. Iyiola Ayoade against musician Mr. Charles Nii Armah Mensah Jnr aka Shatta Wale?on Monday. With this decision going in their favour,?the ?dancehall king? cannot make any more videos against Charterhouse or Mr. Ayoade until the substantive case they brought against him is heard.

Shatta Wale
Shatta Wale

The Plaintiffs through their lawyer Egbert Faibille Jnr, had?prayed?the court to order an interlocutory injunction on the musician?from uploading on Facebook or any other social media platform the four videos they deemed as defamatory?and/or any other similar videos pending the hearing of the case they brought to court against him in which they accused the Defendant of defamation.

It will be recalled that earlier this month, Charterhouse and Mr. Ayoade filed a?suit numbered APB/2015 at the Fast Track Division of the High Court in Accra in relation to four separate videos they alleged that?Shatta Wale had?uploaded on social media which they considered as defamatory.

The two Plaintiffs prayed the court to declare that the?Dancehall King singer had defamed them with the four separate videos he recorded and uploaded to his Facebook page. According to the writ, two each of the said videos were respectively uploaded on 23rd and 24th September 2014 respectively.

Again, the Plaintiffs asked the?court ?to order the?Defendant 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 third relief sought by the Plaintiffs was for?Shatta Wale to send the four videos in which he renders apologies to the Plaintiffs to ?all media houses and online publications that have aired the defamatory videos complained of and ensure that same and/or published at his own expense? 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 case was adjourned to 3rd November for hearing.

Credit: Francis Doku


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.