Ratio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio Decidendi



GEORGE BOSOMPIM AND NII LANTE KUMI-BRUCE
V.
TV3 NETWORK LIMITED AND EVANS KUMI WADEWOR

(2016) JELR 63907 (HC)    
High Court  ·  SUIT NO. IPR/11/2013 ·  31 Oct 2016 ·  Ghana
CORAM
SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU

Ratio Decidendi

Core Terms Beta
shoeshine boy
evidence
court
plaintiffs
1st defendant
statement of defence
gama film company
music score
court finds
cross examination
court holds
evidence act
television series
2nd defendant
evidence of a particular fact
obligation of a party
shoeshine boy’ television series
sufficient evidence
1st defendant’s television network
actions of the defendants
continuous production of the television series bns
copyright of the plaintiffs
copyright of the tv drama series barber
copyright owner of the sound track
declaration of the court
economic rights
employee of the gama film company limited
exhibit a
infringement of their copyright
main issue
mind of the court
music of barber
plagiarism of their work
plaintiffs’ allegations
plaintiffs claim
plaintiffs’ work
present case
statement of claim
state of the pleadings
supreme court of the united states
u.s. supreme court
workers of gama film company limited
work of the plaintiffs

JUDGMENT

ASIEDU, J.

Until the year 2013, the 1st plaintiff was an employee of the Gama Film Company Limited which had produced a television series known as Barber and Shoeshine Boy (BNS). This television series was being shown on the 1st defendant’s television network known as TV3. It so happened that when Gama was divested in the year 2013, the 1st defendant needed the continuous production of the television series BNS, so, according to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant entered into an arrangement with the plaintiffs to continue with the production of the series for a fee of GH₵7,000 per episode that was produced.

After a while, the 1st defendant abrogated the contract with the plaintiffs for the production of the television series BNS and then engaged the 2nd defendant to produce the series. The 2nd defendant who then started producing the series did not acknowledge the plaintiffs in the television series subsequently produced. The plaintiffs claim that the concept, content and the mus…

There's more. Sign in to continue reading.

judy.legal is the comprehensive database of case law and legislation from Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Gain seamless access to over 20,000 cases, recent judgments, statutes, and rules of court.

Get started   Login