An Accra High Court has adjourned the matter involving Nii Charles Armah Mensah known as Shatta Wale to June 27, 2023 to enable the parties to file terms of settlement.
The adjournment was requested by the Lawyers for the Dancehall Artiste.
Lawyers for Shatta Wale made the request for two weeks to enable them to file terms of settlement.
Mr Frank Atese Kwabena, the Counsel for Shatta Wale, who held brief for Madam Cynthia Quarcoe, told the Court that they had made some progress in their engagements.
The Court presided over by Justice Joseph Agyemang Adu Owusu after hearing the respondent, said since settlement was in progress, the case has been adjourned to June 27, 2023.
On November 2, 2022, Shatta Wale made some publication on his Facebook page, implicating his Former Manager, Lawrence Asiamah Hanson also known as Bulldog, in the murder of Fennec Okyere, among others.
Bulldog, a Former Manager of Shatta Wale, then sued him for defamation but, the parties have in various sittings especially counsel for Shatta Wale, told the Court that the parties are willing to settle the matter out of Court.
Since March 7, 2023, when the request was made, the parties have appeared in court at least three times, saying talks on settlement were progressing.
On April 18, 2023, Lawyers for Shatta Wale again requested for a month of further negotiations after Lawyers for Bulldog indicated the parties failed to reach agreement.
Back in Court after a month, on May 16, 2023, Lawyers for Shatta Wale indicated that the parties have now agreed on settlement terms in principle, as quoted by Gbcghanaonline.com.
He, therefore, prayed the Court for a month’s adjournment for the parties to draft the terms of settlement and the same filed to the court for its adoption as a consent judgement.
The plaintiff is seeking a declaration of the Court that the series of publications made by the Defendant as particularised in the Statement of Claim are defamatory to the Plaintiff.
He is also praying the Court for declaration of the Court that the series of publications made by the Respondent in the Statement of Claim are malicious.
An order of the Court directed at the respondent to on all his social media pages or accounts, make a publication on seven consecutive days of an unqualified retraction of and unreserved apology for the defamatory words that the Defendant has published about the Plaintiff, such retraction and apology to be vetted and approved by the Plaintiff’s lawyers.
An order of the Court for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent, his agents, workmen, assigns and servants from publishing or further publishing any defamatory words against the Plaintiff.
He seeks general damages for defamation, special damages for defamation and punitive damages for malicious publication of falsehood against the Plaintiff.
