The High Court has dismissed an application by the Bono Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Kwame Baffoe, popularly known as Abronye DC, seeking to set aside a defamation suit filed against him by the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr Randy Abbey.

Justice Klorkor Okai-Mills ruled that the application challenging the writ of summons and statement of claim was improperly filed. However, the court directed that the issue of the appropriate venue for hearing the case be referred to the Chief Justice for determination.

The ruling was delivered in the case of Dr Ransford Annerty Abbey v. Kwame Baffoe, in which Dr Abbey is seeking damages over alleged defamatory statements published online by the NPP communicator.

Abronye DC had entered a conditional appearance and filed an application asking the court to dismiss or set aside the amended writ of summons and statement of claim.

His application was based on two main grounds.

First, he argued that the case was filed in the wrong jurisdiction because he resides in the Bono Region and was served through substituted service at his residence in Sunyani. He contended that Dr Abbey was aware of his location but chose to initiate the action in a court he considered inappropriate.

He maintained that the matter should have been filed before a court with jurisdiction over his place of residence.

The second argument challenged the validity of the legal representation of Dr Abbey. Abronye argued that the solicitor’s licence number attached to the court documents did not correspond with a valid licence issued to a lawyer authorised to practise during the 2025/2026 legal year.

He therefore argued that only lawyers with valid practising licences could represent parties before Ghanaian courts.

However, counsel for Dr Abbey, Alex Owoo, opposed the application, arguing that the motion filed by the defendant was procedurally defective.

He explained that Abronye relied on Order 9 Rule 8 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, C.I. 47, which deals with issues such as setting aside writs, service and related matters, but does not provide the proper procedure for challenging the venue of a case.

According to him, venue-related objections should be raised under Order 3 Rule 2 of C.I. 47.

In her ruling, Justice Okai-Mills agreed that the provisions relied upon by the defendant were distinct and found that while the venue objection was raised within the appropriate timeframe, the remedy sought by Abronye was not legally applicable.

The court held that a challenge to the venue of a case does not require the dismissal or striking out of the plaintiff’s action. Instead, such matters should be referred to the Chief Justice to determine the appropriate location for the proceedings.

The High Court consequently dismissed Abronye DC’s application to set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim and ordered that the venue issue be forwarded to the Chief Justice in accordance with Order 3 Rule 2 of C.I. 47.

The ruling was delivered in the absence of Dr Abbey, while Abronye DC was present in court.