Guys just take note that Mr Otuo has two distinct claims, one against Watch Tower alone which was wrongly struck out as being time barred by one day. This claim will test whether the words "Frank Otuo is no longer a witness" are defamatory. If he succeeds, the announcement for disfellowshipping might be dropped and perhaps never again announce before a congregation, the disfellowshipping of a brother but will have to be done in a grapevine style i.e. word of mouth. The second claim is between him and the coordinator who appeared to have instigated in DF and Watch Tower. That is the one subject to the recent judgement. The first case awaits reinstatement by the Court of Appeal after a second Judge found that it was not time barred at all but procedurally it will require the Court of Appeal to reinstate the claim. Fascinating time in the UK
Adwoa Kromo
JoinedPosts by Adwoa Kromo
-
26
Sir David Eady to give judgement on the Watctower Appeal in the Otuo v Morley and Watch Tower case at the High Court tommorrow
by Adwoa Kromo insir david eady sitting as high court judge will hand down judgement tomorrow at 11:00am in the appeal of the decision from master leslie for refusing to strike out the claim as an abuse of process.
in his judgement in november 2014 he stated in his judgement delivered ex-tempore " i am bound to say that this case causes me a good deal of trouble".
from notes that i have from the hearing last week, i will be utterly surprised if the retired judge sir david eady takes a different view.
-
-
-
26
Sir David Eady to give judgement on the Watctower Appeal in the Otuo v Morley and Watch Tower case at the High Court tommorrow
by Adwoa Kromo insir david eady sitting as high court judge will hand down judgement tomorrow at 11:00am in the appeal of the decision from master leslie for refusing to strike out the claim as an abuse of process.
in his judgement in november 2014 he stated in his judgement delivered ex-tempore " i am bound to say that this case causes me a good deal of trouble".
from notes that i have from the hearing last week, i will be utterly surprised if the retired judge sir david eady takes a different view.
-
-
Adwoa Kromo
Watch Tower case was dismissed with cost. I will bring excerpts from judgement later today. -
26
Sir David Eady to give judgement on the Watctower Appeal in the Otuo v Morley and Watch Tower case at the High Court tommorrow
by Adwoa Kromo insir david eady sitting as high court judge will hand down judgement tomorrow at 11:00am in the appeal of the decision from master leslie for refusing to strike out the claim as an abuse of process.
in his judgement in november 2014 he stated in his judgement delivered ex-tempore " i am bound to say that this case causes me a good deal of trouble".
from notes that i have from the hearing last week, i will be utterly surprised if the retired judge sir david eady takes a different view.
-
-
Adwoa Kromo
Sir David Eady Sitting as High Court judge will hand down judgement tomorrow at 11:00am in the appeal of the decision from Master Leslie for refusing to strike out the claim as an abuse of process. In his judgement in November 2014 he stated in his judgement delivered ex-tempore " I am bound to say that this case causes me a good deal of trouble". From notes that I have from the hearing last week, I will be utterly surprised if the retired judge Sir David Eady takes a different view. Asked whether Watch Tower intends to put in a plea of justification for the allegation of the words complained of, namely fraud, Mr Daniel representing the defendants said they did not intend to justify those words. That is another way saying that they don't believe Mr Otuo committed fraud but they said it anyway. One other shocking revelation in court last week was that, it was originally alleged by Morley that they ( the elders) had received a letter from a third party accusing Mr Otuo of fraud, when Mr Otuo asked to be given a copy of the letter he declined and he has not seen the text of the allegation to date. The judge asked Mr Daniel the whereabouts of the letter in court and to the shock of the gallery, he said it had been destroyed. The judge pressed further and asked whether the third party indeed accused Mr Otuo of fraud, he said "NO" . In my opinion that was a watershed moment. They are bound to fail tomorrow. If I were the Defendants, I would be looking at settling this claim to spare the embarrassment of a trial. Mr Otuo has them lock, stock and barrel. I will be back with judgement soon. Turn up if you can at the Queens Bench possibly in Court 13 or ask at the reception. -
7
Watch Tower appeal unfavourable judgement in Otuo v Morley and Watch Tower
by Adwoa Kromo insir david eady sitting as emeritus high court judge, quite likely in court 13 of the high court in the queens bench division at 10:30am tomorrow will hear an appeal against the decision of master leslie refusing to strike out a claim from mr otuo against an elder, j morley of the wimbledon congregation in england.
watch tower seeks to assert that the repetition of the allegation of fraud by the said elder at a meeting to hear the reinstatement application of the claimant in the presence of three other elders can not amount to publication sufficient to found a claim in slander.
further, the occasion should attract qualified privilege and as such even if the words were defamatory of otuo, the defendants should be protected in law by the privilege in so as far they acted in good faith.
-
-
Adwoa Kromo
@joe134 have you read any of his brief? you will be surprised he's got them lock stock and barrel -
7
Watch Tower appeal unfavourable judgement in Otuo v Morley and Watch Tower
by Adwoa Kromo insir david eady sitting as emeritus high court judge, quite likely in court 13 of the high court in the queens bench division at 10:30am tomorrow will hear an appeal against the decision of master leslie refusing to strike out a claim from mr otuo against an elder, j morley of the wimbledon congregation in england.
watch tower seeks to assert that the repetition of the allegation of fraud by the said elder at a meeting to hear the reinstatement application of the claimant in the presence of three other elders can not amount to publication sufficient to found a claim in slander.
further, the occasion should attract qualified privilege and as such even if the words were defamatory of otuo, the defendants should be protected in law by the privilege in so as far they acted in good faith.
-
-
Adwoa Kromo
Sir David Eady sitting as emeritus High Court judge, quite likely in Court 13 of the High Court in the Queens Bench Division at 10:30am tomorrow will hear an appeal against the decision of Master Leslie refusing to strike out a claim from Mr Otuo against an elder, J Morley of the Wimbledon Congregation in England. Watch Tower seeks to assert that the repetition of the allegation of fraud by the said elder at a meeting to hear the reinstatement application of the Claimant in the presence of three other elders can not amount to publication sufficient to found a claim in slander. Further, the occasion should attract qualified privilege and as such even if the words were defamatory of Otuo, the Defendants should be protected in law by the privilege in so as far they acted in good faith. Mr Otuo on the other hand maintains that there was publication( Master Leslie agrees and Sir David Eady has restated the position of the law to Watchtower in the last hearing which was adjourned to tomorrow that there was indeed publication). He further maintains that Morley was actuated by malice i.e. being recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of the allegation. I personally see this as a tough one for Watch Tower to succeed. I invite all who can attend to come to court tomorrow to support Mr Otuo's action. Please see the Daily Cause list for the Queens Division online after 3pm today to the get the exact court where the action will happen. I shall report back notwithstanding. -
11
Latest on Otuo v Jonathan David Morely & Watchtower Bible and Tract Society + Otuo v Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
by Adwoa Kromo ina month ago someone inquired about where the case against watchtower in otuo v watchtower was at currently.
firstly the claimant has brought two separate claims against the watchtower .
case 1 relates to a suit in slander premised on the words , "frank otuo is no longer a jehovah witness".
-
-
Adwoa Kromo
A month ago someone inquired about where the case against Watchtower in Otuo v Watchtower was at currently. Firstly the Claimant has brought two separate claims against the Watchtower . Case 1 relates to a suit in slander premised on the words , "Frank Otuo is no longer a Jehovah Witness". This statement he saids is defamatory of him as the audience were capable of giving it the innuendo meaning that he had committed at least one of the following " theft, paedophilia, fraud or adultery`'. At a preliminary hearing in November 2013 of which judgement was handed down on Dec 5 2013; the judge considered Watchtower's application to strike out on the grounds that the issues raise matters of church doctrine and thus were non-justiciable in the court of law. This is watchtower's trump card in USA as the constitution offers such near blanket protection which the organisation has abused. Otuo made a cross application to the judge to determine whether the words are capable of the meaning in its literal or natural sense and if not was it capable of the meaning by innuendo. In Law either can sustain claim. HHJ Moloney dismissed Watchtower's strike out application holding that the issue raised by the Claimant(fraud) is in fact justiciable as they go to questions of fact not doctrine. He Further Held that the words were not capable of being defamatory in it's literal or natural sense i.e. a neutral person with no special knowledge ( those possessed by witnesses or those who are interested in their teachings) of those words would not read them as meaning what Otuo says it means. However he found that those very words can convey the meaning Otuo pleads in the innuendo sense to those who have the "special knowledge" and thus will be capable of being defamatory. The case was scheduled to be tried later in 2014. In June 2014 Watchtower wanted a second bite at the cherry. This time they applied to have the claim struck as being time barred by a one day, as it is the case in English Law that all defamation claims should be brought within one year or twelve months from when the cause of action accrued. The announcement or publication as it is known in legal jargon was made on the 19th July 2013 and Otuo filed his claim on the 19th July 2013. It was Watchtower's case that the Limitation period expired on midnight 18th July 2013 and thus Otuo's claim was time barred. The Master struck out the claim as being time-barred by one day. He gave permission to appeal on limited ground that Watchtower had raised that defence too late and could as result be said to have waived their right to a defence based on limitation. The appeal came before Sir David Eady, an experienced defamation judge. He held that a waiver of such right should be clear and unequivocal and does not appear that, it can be said that Watchtower waived their right unequivocally. He disallowed the appeal. He however held that Otuo be allowed to be heard on an application under the law to disapply such limitation ( Section 32A of Limitation Act 1980). That came before HHJ Parkes QC. On the 16th March 2015 he handed down his judgment at the Salisbury Combined Court; please read full text of judgement by searching Otuo v Watchtower [2015] EWHC 509 (QB). The judge appeared very aloof to the real issues in his judgement. He disallowed the application to disapply. Otuo, like a dog with a bone in mouth refuses to let the case die. He filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal and awaits the outcome. Here is the twist in the tail; During his preparation to file the appeal of HHJ Parkes' judgement, he stumbled on an authority in the case of Gentoo v Hanratty [2008] EHWC 627 (QB) at par [7] of the judgement it was held by Eady J as he was then known, that in English Law when computing time barred by statute, no count is made to include the day on which the cause of action accrued. This implies that the Master was wrong in Law in the first place to have held that Otuo's claim was time barred. The Master has since admitted the error and has asked Otuo to appeal his judgement. If there is one thing that Otuo appears to have learnt in his days as witness, it is the proverbial "waiting attitude" often drilled into witnesses to have. He appears determined to see the matter to the happy ending as we all hope. Watchtower, from the excerpts of defence that I have read, does not seem to have a chance of succeeding on this claim. Watchtower recognises the effect an adverse judgement will have on them when she said in her defence," to allow a claim in damages in such circumstances would have a chilling effect and/or inhibiting effect on their right and public interest as a church to deal properly, or at all with those committing gross sin, especially in matters relating to Child Safeguarding ( and therefore liable to expulsion for the benefit and protection of the remaining members) as to deny them of the rights guaranteed to them under the said Article 9 of the Convention".Otuo has them lock, stock and barrel. His case is one of the most grotesque form of injustice ever suffered since the case of Olin Moyle v Rutherford & Anr in the late 1930s. He is determined to ensure that the organisation takes dis-fellowshipping seriously and should only be carried out on proven facts not on the subjective intentions of a proven bigot like Jonathan Morley, the elder in this case accused of maliciously instigating the action without any evidence of the accusation. My Next report will be on the second claim i.e. Otuo v Jonathan David Morley & Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Britain it deals with a repetition of the slander by Morley at a meeting to consider Otuo's reinstatement after one year of dis-fellowshipping.. It clear that whatever the outcome Otuo has shaken and broken the foundations of the Watchtower's key defence of non-justiciability. He is a dogged litigant in person who has quite clearly familiarised himself with the defamation laws of England and has an eagle eye for detail in spotting any weakness in Watchtower's defences. Bravo!!