The ongoing defamation suit filed by actress Martha Ankomah against actor Kwadwo Nkansah, popularly known as Lilwin, has taken an unexpected turn, testing the patience of the presiding judge at the Accra High Court. Initially anticipated as a straightforward legal procedure culminating in an amicable resolution, the case has become entangled in delays and missed deadlines, primarily due to the repeated absence of Lilwin and his legal representation. The heart of the matter lies in alleged defamatory remarks made by Lilwin in response to Ankomah’s public criticism of Kumawood productions, where she expressed reservations about the quality of their storylines and her subsequent decision to abstain from collaborating with actors from that industry.
Ankomah’s public pronouncements, which highlighted her concerns about the narrative depth and overall quality of Kumawood productions, seemingly sparked a reaction from Lilwin. The actor’s response, perceived as defamatory by Ankomah, allegedly crossed the line of acceptable discourse, prompting her to seek legal recourse. The ensuing lawsuit, initially aimed at addressing the alleged defamation, was poised for an out-of-court settlement by April 1, 2025. However, despite initial indications of willingness to resolve the matter amicably, Lilwin and his legal team failed to meet the agreed-upon deadline, leading to a series of postponements and mounting frustration on the part of the court.
The crux of the delay, as revealed in the court proceedings, centers around the finalization of the settlement terms. Ankomah’s lawyer, Nii Appiatu Plange, informed the court that the agreed-upon terms of the settlement were submitted to Lilwin’s legal team in mid-March 2025. However, despite ample time for review and signature, no communication or confirmation was received from Lilwin’s side, leaving Ankomah’s legal team in a state of uncertainty. This lack of response, coupled with the absence of Lilwin and his counsel at the subsequent court hearing on April 14, 2025, further complicated the proceedings and raised concerns about the actor’s commitment to resolving the matter.
Adding to the intrigue, a representative from Lilwin’s legal team offered an explanation for the delay, attributing it to the lead counsel’s illness. According to the representative, the settlement documents were only recently presented to Lilwin for his signature due to the counsel’s health issues. While this explanation offered a potential reason for the missed deadline, it failed to satisfy Justice Forson Agyapong Baah, who expressed palpable frustration at the protracted nature of the proceedings. The judge’s remarks underscored the court’s expectation of a timely resolution, emphasizing that the ongoing delays were detrimental to all parties involved.
The judge’s disappointment stemmed from the anticipation that the April 14th hearing would finalize the terms of the settlement, bringing an end to the drawn-out legal battle. The failure to achieve this outcome underscored the lack of progress and raised questions about the commitment of Lilwin and his legal team to adhering to the agreed-upon timelines. The judge’s clear expression of disapproval highlighted the importance of respecting the court’s time and procedures, emphasizing the need for all parties to engage constructively in the legal process.
The ongoing delays in the defamation case between Martha Ankomah and Kwadwo Nkansah (Lilwin) have brought to light the challenges associated with out-of-court settlements. While such settlements offer a potentially quicker and less adversarial path to resolution, they require diligent communication, cooperation, and adherence to agreed-upon timelines. The current situation, marked by missed deadlines, absent parties, and unconvincing explanations, underscores the potential for such settlements to become entangled in procedural complexities, ultimately prolonging the legal process and frustrating the court’s efforts to achieve a timely resolution. The unfolding events highlight the importance of clear communication, timely responses, and a demonstrated commitment to resolving disputes efficiently and respectfully within the legal framework.
