The Supreme Court has slapped Kumawood actor Kwadwo Nkansah, popularly known as LilWin, with a cost of GH¢10,000 after striking out his application seeking to halt the hearing of actress Martha Ankomah’s defamation action against him.
LilWin had filed an Application for Stay of Proceedings at the Apex Court on March 4, 2026, after similar ones at the High Court and Court of Appeal were earlier dismissed.
Actress Martha Ankomah, in February 2024, initiated a defamation action against LilWin, in which she is seeking general and aggravated damages in the sum of GH¢5 million, an apology, and a retraction.
With the hearing ongoing at the High Court, lawyers for LilWin filed a motion to challenge the jurisdiction of the case taking place in Accra instead of Kumasi.
Following the dismissal of that request, the lawyers, led by Margaret Adjei-Twum, moved an application for Stay of Proceedings pending appeal at the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed.
A repeat application for Stay of Proceedings at the Court of Appeal was also dismissed, and subsequently moved to the Supreme Court for Stay on March 4, 2026, which was fixed for hearing on March 31, 2026.
A day before the hearing of his application, LilWin, through his lawyers, filed a notice to withdraw the Application for Stay of Proceedings with liberty to reapply.
“Please take note that the Defendant/Appellant/Applicant herein has withdrawn the Application for Stay of Proceedings filed against the Plaintiff/Respondent with liberty to reapply,” the withdrawal notice stated.
On Tuesday, March 31, 2026, when the case was called, neither LilWin nor his lawyers showed up at the Apex Court, a development that the Supreme Court panel of five, presided over by Justice Amadu Tanko, said amounted to a show of “disrespect” to the Apex Court.
“For the principal (actor) and his lawyer not respecting us (by absenting themselves),” the Court will consider a cost from the Plaintiff’s lawyers.
Roland Karikari Apau, holding brief for his senior counsel, Nii Apatu Plange, for Martha Ankomah, the Plaintiff (Respondent) in the application at the Supreme Court, urged the Supreme Court to exercise discretion to award cost.
The panel, which also includes Justices Samuel Adibu Asiedu, Henry Anthony Kwofie, Sir Dominic Dennis Adjei, and Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, struck out the application as withdrawn and awarded a cost of GH¢10,000 against LilWin.
Settlement
At the parties’ last appearance at the High Court, lawyers of the Defendant (LilWin) said they are still willing to have the GH¢5 million defamation lawsuit against him settled out of court after reneging on similar overtures.
That development was on the back of a breakdown of an earlier agreement last year to have the matter settled when the High Court, differently constituted, had adjourned for them to file their terms of settlement.
Though the previous settlement terms were agreed in principle, LilWin, who is the defendant, refused to append his signature to what was agreed on, leading to the recalling of the case in court to take its normal course.
Actress Martha Ankomah filed a GH¢5 million defamation suit against LilWin over alleged disparaging comments he made about her in public.
The presiding judge, Justice Halimah El-Alawa Abdul Basit, has adjourned the case to April 14, 2026, for the parties to resolve the matter and announce settlement or otherwise.
Background
In a writ of summons filed on February 14, 2024, Martha Ankomah claims that the statements made by LilWin have harmed her reputation and the brand, GTP.
Martha Ankomah insists that LilWin falsely accused her of showing disdain towards Kumawood actors by refusing to collaborate with them due to their perceived lack of quality storylines.
Martha Ankomah argued in the writ that LilWin’s published words were defamatory.
She is therefore demanding:
a) Damages in the sum of GH¢5 million for the defamatory statements made by the Defendant.
b) Compensatory damages for the damage done to the reputation of the Plaintiff.
c) Aggravated damages for the reckless and malicious publication of the defamatory words.
d) An order directing the Defendant to publish an apology and a retraction of the defamatory words with the same prominence.
e) An injunction restraining the Defendant from further publishing or causing to be published the said or similar words defamatory of the Plaintiff.
f) Legal costs.
