Law Author

The case was an appeal from a conviction for failing to attend a meeting of the Kumasi Traditional Council,
which was an offence under the Chieftaincy (Amendment) Decree, 1966 (N.L.C. 112), para. 5A¹².

The appellant, Ababio, was the chief of Kaase and a member of the Kumasi Traditional Council. He argued
that he was not affected by the Decree, as his stool was not among those listed in the First Schedule, which
contained the names of chiefs who were reduced in status by the Decree¹².

He also argued that he had already suffered the customary sanction of destoolment for his failure to attend
the meeting, and that the prosecution under the Decree put him in double jeopardy¹².

The High Court, per Mensa Boison J., dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The court held that
the Decree applied to all chiefs who were members of the Traditional Councils, regardless of whether their
stools were listed in the First Schedule or not¹².

The court also held that destoolment was not a punishment for the same offence as the prosecution under
the Decree, but a sanction for breaching a customary obligation. Therefore, there was no double jeopardy
involved¹².

The relevance of the case is that it shows how the legal system in Ghana deals with the interaction between
customary law and statutory law, especially in matters relating to chieftaincy. It also illustrates how the courts
interpret and apply decrees issued by military regimes, which often have wide and vague provisions³.
(1) Case Brief for Ababio V THE REP – ABABIO V. THE REPUBLIC [1972] 1 GLR ….
https://www.studocu.com/row/document/ghana-institute-of-management-and-public￾administration/law/case-brief-for-ababio-v-the-rep/20132416.
(2) Ababio v. Republic [1972] 1 GLR 347 – LAW – Studocu.
https://www.studocu.com/row/document/ghana-institute-of-management-an Huid-public￾administration/law/ababio-v-republic-1972-1-glr-347/21675564.

(3) Ababio v. THE Republic – ABABIO v. THE REPUBLIC [1972] 1 GLR 347 ….https://www.studocu.com/row/document/pentecost-university-college/constitutional-law/ababio-v-the￾republic/66681146.

Summary:

The case A v B plc [2002] EWCA Civ 337; [2003] QB 195; [2002] 2 All ER 545; [2002] 2 WLR 542 was a landmark case in English law concerning the right to privacy and freedom of expression. The claimant, A, was a famous footballer who had extramarital affairs with two women. He sought an injunction to prevent the defendant newspaper, B, from publishing the details of his affairs, claiming that they were confidential and protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. The defendant argued that the publication was justified by Article 10 of the ECHR, which protects the right to freedom of expression, and that the claimant had no reasonable expectation of privacy for his transient sexual relationships.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and lifted the injunction, holding that the claimant was not likely to succeed at trial in establishing that the details of his affairs were confidential. The court also held that the judge at first instance had erred in applying the same level of protection to marital and non-marital relationships, and had failed to give due weight to the right to freedom of expression of the defendant and the two women involved. The court further noted that the claimant, as a well-known public figure and role model, had to accept a certain degree of public scrutiny and criticism.

The relevance of this case is that it established some general principles and guidelines for balancing the competing rights of privacy and expression in cases involving media publication of personal information. The court emphasized that any interference with freedom of expression had to be justified by a strong public interest, and that the protection of confidentiality depended on the nature and circumstances of the relationship between the parties. The court also recognized that different categories of relationships may warrant different degrees of protection, and that public figures may have a lower expectation of privacy than ordinary individuals. This case was one of the first to apply the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the ECHR into domestic law, and it influenced subsequent cases on privacy and media law.¹²

---

(1) A v B [2002] 2 All ER 545 – LawTeacher.net. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/a-v-b.php.
(2) A v B plc [2002] EWCA Civ 337 Case Summary – Oxbridge Notes. https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/a-v-b-plc.
(3) undefined. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/a-v-b.php?vref=1.