In 2020, Fred Kusim. A. Windaogo (Plaintiff) and Martin Luther Kpebu (the 1st defendant) both lawyers went before the court over who has the ownership and copyright of a book titled “Annotated Evidence Law of Ghana”.
According to the host of Good Evening Ghana, Paul Adom-Otchere, who discussed the matter on his show, while it is not disputed that Fred was the one who mooted the idea and invited Mr. Kpebu to join him to actualize the dream, it is the case of Mr. Kpebu that Fred lacks the intellectual ability to write a book as an author.
“This is what Martin Kpebu was urging on the court that his colleague, Fred, doesn’t know anything. Martin Kpebu, knows everything. I even think it is disrespectful to speak of another colleague in that manner,” the host remarked.
Mr Adom-Otchere noted that Mr Kpebu said he “re-wrote all the work done by Fred’ and therefore the final work is his handiwork alone and not a joint authorship. The court is called upon to deal with such issues as copyright and the allegation of breach of the agreement executed by the parties and the allegation of bad faith by Martin Kpebu.”
The court in which Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo sat as Additional High Court Judge is said to have ruled against Martin Kpebu, describing his actions as unjust and unlawful.
“In dealing with the issues, I do not wish to rehash the facts further. Consequently, based on the aforementioned analysis and conclusion, it is my opinion that the general conduct of Martin Kpebu in the subject matter project with the Plaintiff was unjust and unlawful. One clear instance is Martin Kpebu’s decision to unilaterally change the order of the names on the book. That was unjust and unfair because the agreement he signed clearly stated how the names were to be on the book,” the judge is quoted to have ruled.
The court added: “It is also clear that the eminent jurist who wrote the Foreword had that in mind in the way he referred to the authors in what he wrote. It is the opinion of the Court that Mr. Kpebu’s attempt to reverse the order of the names of the authors on the book contrary to the agreement he signed was disingenuous and an act of bad faith.
“Apart from that, it is also my holding that Martin Kpebu’s insistence that the work done was separable and the final work is “my work” and “my book” in the face of the agreement and how the work was done also constitute bad faith behavior.”
The court noted that with Mr Kpebu’s popularity, he should have accorded his colleague some respect.
“In my view, even though the 1st Defendant might assume that he is “smart” and “popular” as he put it, he ought to give some modicum of respect to a colleague lawyer. Through his questions and answers, he was condescending towards the Plaintiff by his choice of words and how he described the plaintiff in the course of the proceedings. In the opinion of the Court the 1st Defendant’s approach was not only unacceptable but disrespectful and arrogant. I wish to put it on the record that this court did not appreciate same at all.”