Case of the WeeK: Kate Bimpong v. Pastor Sampson Joe Baning, Head Pastor, Living Testimonies for Living Jesus Bible Ministry.

High Court, Suit No. BC 531/2014 | Judgment delivered on 22 April 2016

Introduction:

Can a person who has served a church for years, based on promises of support from a pastor, later claim wages or damages when those promises are not fulfilled?

This case tested whether religious or voluntary service could amount to an enforceable legal relationship, and whether statements made by a pastor about a member’s character could amount to defamation.

Facts:

The Plaintiff, Kate Bimpong, was a member of the Defendant’s church, the Living Testimonies for Living Jesus Bible Ministry. She had worked as a professional hairdresser in Cantonments before joining the church. She said the Defendant, Pastor Sampson Joe Baning, persuaded her to move her salon to the church’s premises at Kasoa in 1998 to serve the resident female workers known as “Levites.”

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant promised to pay her ₵200 (two hundred cedis) monthly, and also to buy her a car and a house. Acting on this promise, she dressed the hair of the Levites for several years free of charge, using her own tools and materials.

In 2003, when she attempted to operate a chop bar at the church premises to earn some income, she said the Defendant ordered her to stop, assuring her that she would receive a monthly allowance instead. No payment was made.

She also stated that for about seven years before her expulsion, she served the church as an evangelist and preacher, planting branches in Bawjiase, Agona Swedru, Nsawam, Suhum, Kumasi and other towns, and managing funds allocated for her evangelism work.

In 2013, she was expelled from the church after being accused of harbouring an evil spirit and being responsible for the death of a church member. The Defendant allegedly told the congregation that she was “a Judas” and “filled with a ghost,” causing members to avoid her.

The Plaintiff sued for:

1. unpaid salary from 1998–2013;

2. damages for breach of promise of a car and house; and
3. damages for defamation.

The Defendant denied all allegations, saying she volunteered her services and was expelled for misusing church funds.

Issues for Determination:

1. Whether the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff and provide her with a car and a house.
2. Whether the Plaintiff’s service to the church created an enforceable contract.
3. Whether the Defendant defamed the Plaintiff by stating that she was possessed by an evil spirit.

The Court’s Holding:

The High Court found that:

1. The Plaintiff indeed worked for the church and some promises might have been made, but there was no intention to create legal relations between the parties. Her work for the church was therefore voluntary and could not ground an action for salary or breach of promise.

2. The evidence, including a video recording of the Pastoral Coordinating Committee meeting, confirmed that the Defendant said of the Plaintiff, “Sister Kate, biribi foforɔ na ɛde no reyɛ adwuma,” meaning “Sister Kate is being used by something else or possessed.”
3. The Court held that in the context of a church setting, where the Defendant wielded authority, those words implied that the Plaintiff was possessed by an evil spirit. Such a statement was defamatory, as it exposed her to hatred, ridicule and public contempt within the church.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the claims for salary, car and house, but upheld the claim for defamation. In short, the court ruled that faith-based service does not create a contract, but faith-based defamation creates liability.

She was awarded General damages of GHS 50,000 for defamation and Costs of GHS 3,000.

Implication of the Decision:

The decision clarifies that voluntary religious service does not amount to a legal contract unless both parties intend to create legal obligations. However, pastoral authority does not shield a person from liability for defamation. Words spoken from the pulpit that damage another’s reputation can attract legal consequences. The law respects faith, but it equally protects reputation.

Significant Quote:

“Sister Kate, biribi foforɔ na ɛde no reyɛ adwuma” — translated as “Sister Kate is possessed”

“I have been observing the proceedings in this court. At no point did it appear that the Defendant was a tad remorseful for what he had caused. In fact, in the course of his testimony, he sometimes seemed to be amused by the whole spectacle. And, considering that he is a man of the cloth, he has not been at all conciliatory, which I find most unfortunate”

 – Asare-Botwe (Mrs.), J.

Commentary and Insight:

This case shows the line between spiritual obligation and legal responsibility. While church members may offer voluntary service out of faith, such service does not automatically create rights to payment. At the same time, the courts will protect personal dignity when false or damaging statements are made under the cover of religious authority. For Pastors, this decision highlights the fact that the honour associated with pastoral work may not suffice to absolve them from legal liability for any defamatory comment they make.