My earlier article relied on processes filed in the Court in this case. Now here is the Judgment. The first part of this instalment provides the timelines of the litigation and subsequent contempt proceedings as detailed in the Judgment of the High Court of Justice (General Jurisdiction), Accra, delivered today, June 25, 2026.

The second part attempt a brief summary of the decision:

November 22, 2024: The Applicant, Kevin Okyere, commences a defamation lawsuit against the Respondent, Larry Alans Dogbe, and two others over allegedly defamatory statements published in The Herald newspaper and its website.

December 19, 2024: The Applicant files an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from making further publications pending determination of the suit.

January 30, 2025: The Respondent files a Statement of Defence in the substantive lawsuit.

June 11, 2025: The High Court grants the Order for Interlocutory Injunction, legally restraining the defendants from publishing statements intended to undermine and tarnish the Applicant’s reputation pending the final determination of the suit.

June 25, 2025: The Respondent files a Notice of Appeal against the court’s injunction ruling, outlining seven specific grounds of appeal.

September 23, 2025: The Court issues an Order for Substituted Service, directing that the Injunction Order be served on the Respondent concurrently via physical posting on the court’s notice board, a national newspaper publication, and WhatsApp.

November 12, 2025: Despite the subsistence of the injunction, the Respondent publishes an article titled “Ghanaian Football Star, Sulley Ali Muntari detained in Dubai,” which prominently features the Applicant’s photograph and details an alleged $94 million fraud case.

November 17-18, 2025: The Respondent publishes a front‑page article captioned “Kevin Okyere granted US20 Million Bail in Dubai… Barred from leaving the Emirates Amid US94 Million Fraud Case.”

February 6, 2026: The Respondent publishes another article titled “Kevin Okyere returns with USD$94 million fraud albatross.”

February 10, 2026: The Applicant files an application for Committal for Contempt of Court against the Respondent.

March 27, 2026: The Respondent files his Statement of Case in opposition to the contempt application.

April 14, 2026: The Applicant files his written arguments.

June 3, 2026: The Applicant is cross-examined, and the Respondent is cross‑examined, where he admits The Herald made the publications but denies having prior knowledge of the court’s injunction order.

June 17, 2026: The Respondent’s counsel files a Further Written Submission.

June 25, 2026: His Lordship Isaac Addo, J. delivers judgment, finding the Respondent guilty of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and sentencing him to seven days in prison.

Why the Court found the Respondent guilty of contempt

To secure a conviction for civil/criminal contempt arising from a breach of an injunction, the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a lawful court order existed, that the contemnor (in this case Larry) knew about the order, and that the contemnor willfully disobeyed it. In the Judgment, the court found the Respondent guilty based on the following legal determinations:

1. Clear existence of a lawful Order

The court established that a valid Order for Interlocutory Injunction and an accompanying Penal Notice were actively in place, explicitly prohibiting the Respondent from publishing statements that would tarnish the Applicant’s reputation.

2. Proven knowledge of the Court Order

Although the Respondent claimed he was completely unaware of the injunction because he was not personally served, the court rejected this defense due to overwhelming evidence of actual and constructive knowledge:

The Notice of Appeal: The Respondent had filed a Notice of Appeal exactly two weeks after the injunction was granted. The court noted that the highly specific grounds written in his appeal proved he had read and thoroughly understood the ruling.

Counsel’s Presence: The Respondent’s lawyer was physically present in court when the injunction ruling was delivered.

Successful Substituted Service: The court confirmed that substituted service via the court’s notice board and the Respondent’s verified personal/office WhatsApp numbers had been fully and legally executed. A minor text omission in the parallel newspaper publication did not erase the validity of the other completed modes of service.

3. Willful and deliberate disobedience

During cross‑examination, the Respondent admitted that The Herald published the articles in question. The court looked at the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used—such as labeling the case an “albatross” and using highly sensationalist headlines about millions of dollars in fraud and bail. The court ruled that these inflammatory write‑ups were intentionally calculated to undermine the Applicant’s business and societal standing in direct defiance of the judicial warning.

4. Rejection of constitutional and technical defenses

Press freedom is not absolute: The Respondent argued that as a journalist, he was shielded by constitutional provisions regarding free speech, fair comment, and a duty to inform the public on state assets. The court firmly clarified that media freedom is not a license to disregard lawful court orders.

Injunctions are commands, not requests: The Respondent claimed that the truth of his publications should be tested in a full trial before he could be held in contempt. The court held that an injunction is a direct command to stop; it does not matter if a journalist believes their statements are true or are trying to “try the case in the court of public opinion”- they must obey the order while it stands.

Inadmissible foreign evidence: The Respondent tried to justify his reporting using a UK Magistrates’ Court charge sheet, but the court threw it out because it lacked official diplomatic authentication and literally featured social media icons (WhatsApp, Instagram) at the bottom, making its true origin highly questionable.

Justice Isaac Addo’s 26-page judgment concludes as follows: “[t]o vindicate the authority of this Court and to serve as a deterrent to others who may believe they are above the law, this Court cannot gloss over this willful disobedience.

Accordingly, the Respondent, LARRY ALANS DOGBE, is hereby is sentenced to Seven (7) days’ imprisonment in prison custody. Let a Warrant of Committal be issued immediately to the Director-General of the Ghana Prisons Service, or his designated officers, to carry this sentence into effect.”