The High Court in Accra has dismissed a defamation suit filed by the CEO of COCOBOD, Dr Ransford Anertey Abbey, popularly known as Randy Abbey.
The court dismissed the suit after ruling that the action was procedurally defective because it was instituted using the Legal Department of COCOBOD rather than a private legal practitioner.
The ruling was delivered on Monday, January 19, 2026, by Justice Halimah El‑Alawa Abdul Baasit, sitting at the High Court, General Jurisdiction 2, Accra.
Dr Abbey, who is the Chief Executive Officer of COCOBOD, commenced the action on August 26, 2025, against Kwame Baffoe, also known as Abronye, alleging that the defendant had made certain broadcasts and publications that were defamatory and injurious to his reputation.
The suit was brought in Dr Abbey’s personal capacity, seeking redress for alleged damage to his reputation arising from the publications.
However, the writ of summons and statement of claim were issued by the Legal Department of COCOBOD, with the Legal Director of COCOBOD acting as counsel for the plaintiff.
The defendant raised a preliminary legal objection, challenging the competence of the suit on the grounds that a state institution’s legal department could not lawfully represent an individual in a personal defamation claim where the institution itself was not a party to the action.
When the matter came before the court for ruling, counsel for the defendant elected not to move an application already filed, following an election granted by the court. Justice Abdul Baasit subsequently proceeded to deliver her ruling.
In a detailed ruling, the court held that defamation is a personal tort (in personam), directed at protecting the reputation of a specific individual rather than an institution.
Justice Abdul Baasit noted that although the alleged publications related to Dr Abbey’s role as CEO of COCOBOD, the institution itself was not named as a plaintiff in the suit. As such, there was no legal basis for COCOBOD’s Legal Department to issue the writ or represent Dr Abbey in his personal capacity.
“The Plaintiff having sued in his personal capacity ought to procure the service of a private legal practitioner to represent him,” the judge ruled.
The court concluded that the involvement of COCOBOD’s Legal Department rendered the writ of summons and statement of claim procedurally defective, as public institutional legal resources cannot be deployed for purely personal litigation.
Justice Abdul Baasit accordingly dismissed the writ of summons and statement of claim in their entirety, describing them as incompetent before the court.
The court further ordered that there be no award of costs against either party.
Meanwhile, legal observers like lawyer Oliver Barker-Vormawor say the ruling reinforces long‑standing principles governing the use of state resources and public institutional legal departments, particularly in matters involving personal claims by public office holders.
The decision underscores the distinction between actions brought in an official capacity on behalf of a public institution and those pursued personally, even where the subject matter touches on one’s official role.
As of the time of filing this report, there was no immediate reaction from Dr Abbey or his legal representatives on whether a fresh action would be filed using private counsel.
The ruling was delivered in open court and has since been certified as a true copy by the High Court registry.
