The High Court in Accra has dismissed a defamation suit filed by Dr. Ransford Anertey Abbey, popularly known as Randy Abbey, CEO of COCOBOD, against media personality Kwame Baffoe (Abronye DC).
The ruling, delivered on Monday, January 19, 2026, by Justice Halimah El‑Alawa Abdul Baasit at the High Court, General Jurisdiction 2, found the suit procedurally defective because it was filed using the Legal Department of COCOBOD rather than a private legal practitioner.
Background of the Case
Dr. Abbey commenced the action on August 26, 2025, alleging that Abronye DC had made publications and broadcasts defamatory to his reputation. The suit sought GHS 20 million in damages for the alleged harm.
Although the case concerned Dr. Abbey personally, the writ of summons and statement of claim were issued by COCOBOD’s Legal Department, with the institution’s Legal Director acting as counsel.
Preliminary Objection
Abronye DC challenged the suit, arguing that a state institution’s legal department cannot represent an individual in a personal defamation claim. The court allowed this preliminary objection to proceed, while the defendant’s other applications were held in abeyance.
Court Ruling
Justice Abdul Baasit ruled that defamation is a personal tort, intended to protect an individual’s reputation, not that of an institution. The judge noted that although the alleged defamatory publications were related to Dr. Abbey’s role as COCOBOD CEO, the institution itself was not a party to the suit.
“The Plaintiff having sued in his personal capacity ought to procure the service of a private legal practitioner to represent him,” the ruling stated.
The court concluded that using COCOBOD’s Legal Department for a purely personal claim rendered the writ and statement of claim procedurally incompetent, and dismissed the case in its entirety. No costs were awarded to either party.
Implications
Legal observers, including lawyer Oliver Barker-Vormawor, note that the ruling reinforces the principle that state resources cannot be deployed for personal litigation by public officeholders. The decision highlights the distinction between claims pursued in an official capacity on behalf of a public institution and those pursued personally.
As of this report, there was no comment from Dr. Abbey or his legal team on whether a fresh action will be filed with private legal representation.
