In order to give the parties time to submit settlement conditions, the Accra High Court has postponed the case involving Charles Nii Armah Mensah, better known in the entertainment industry as Shatta Wale, until June 27, 2023.
The dancehall artist’s attorneys asked for the delay.
To give them time to file the settlement terms, Shatta Wale’s attorneys asked for two weeks.
They had made some progress in their engagements, Mr. Frank Atese Kwabena, counsel for Shatta Wale and the person who handled the brief for Madam Cynthia Quarcoe, said the court.
After hearing from the respondent, the court, presided over by Justice Joseph Agyemang Adu Owusu, announced that the case had been postponed to June 27, 2023 since the settlement process was still ongoing.
Shatta Wale published something on his Facebook page on November 2, 2022, accusing his old manager, Lawrence Asiamah Hanson, better known as Bulldog, of killing Fennec Okyere and other people.
Bulldog later filed a defamation lawsuit against him, but the parties—particularly Shatta Wale’s attorney—have indicated to the court in several meetings that they are willing to resolve the case without going to trial.
The parties have been in court at least three times since the request was made on March 7, 2023, claiming that negotiations for a settlement are proceeding.
On April 18, 2023, when lawyers for Bulldog suggested the parties were unable to come to an agreement, attorneys for Shatta Wale once more asked for a month for additional negotiations.
After returning to court a month later, on May 16, 2023, Shatta Wale’s attorneys stated that the parties had finally reached an agreement on the basic conditions of the settlement. Therefore, he asked the court to adjourn for one month so that the parties may create their settlement agreement and submit it for the court to accept as a consent decision.
The plaintiff is asking the court to rule that the defendant’s series of publications, which are listed in detail in the statement of claim, are false and defamatory of the plaintiff.
Additionally, he asks the court to rule that the respondent’s string of publications contained in the statement of claim are malicious.
An order of the court directing the respondent to publish an unqualified retraction of and an unreserved apology for the defamatory statements the defendant has made about the plaintiff on all of his social media pages or accounts on seven consecutive days, subject to review and approval by the plaintiff’s attorneys.
An order of the court for a permanent injunction prohibiting the respondent, his agents, employees, assigns, and servants from publishing or further publishing any defamatory comments against the plaintiff.
He demands punitive damages for willful publishing of falsity against the plaintiff as well as general and specific damages for defamation.
