The Court of Appeal has set aside the 2020 High Court judgment in favour of Abdul Malik Kweku Baako in his defamation suit against Kennedy Ohene Agyapong and ordered that the case be heard afresh.

In a unanimous decision delivered on February 12, 2026, the appellate court directed Mr Baako to refund all monies received under the earlier judgment within 30 days.

Mr Baako had been awarded GH¢130,000 by the High Court — comprising GH¢100,000 in damages and GH¢30,000 in costs. Mr Agyapong paid GH¢80,000 before the appeal was determined.

In a Facebook post following the ruling, Mr Baako stated that the GH¢80,000 remains untouched.

“Not a cedi or a pesewa” has been touched, he wrote, explaining that the money is still intact in his lawyers’ bank account in compliance with the court’s directive.

He also clarified that the Court of Appeal did not determine the substantive merits of the defamation claim, noting that the focus of the original suit had been on securing a retraction and apology for the alleged defamatory remarks.

Mr Baako has signalled his intention to pursue the matter further and expressed confidence in asserting his legal rights.

Background to the dispute

The dispute dates back to July 2018 when Mr Agyapong made statements about Mr Baako on Net 2 TV, Oman FM, Adom FM and Asempa FM. Mr Baako described the remarks as defamatory.

He subsequently filed a suit in October 2018, seeking GH¢25 million in general damages, a retraction and an unqualified apology, as well as a perpetual injunction to restrain further defamatory publications.

On June 26, 2020, the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare Botwe, ruled in favour of Mr Baako. The court ordered Mr Agyapong to retract and apologise three times on the same platforms within 30 days and awarded damages and costs.

Appeal and retrial

The defence challenged the High Court ruling on several grounds, including the striking out of portions of Mr Agyapong’s witness statements during the Case Management Conference stage.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal cited a statutory breach which it said went to the root of the case and rendered the earlier decision flawed.

Although details of the breach are expected to be clarified in the full written judgment, the appellate court held that the issue was sufficient to nullify the High Court’s decision and order a retrial.