In the case of Francis Kwarteng Arthur v. Ghana Telecom Ltd & 4 Others, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning damages awarded in a human rights enforcement action. The appellant, the 4th respondent, raised issues regarding the High Court's ruling, particularly questioning the validity of the damages awarded and the court's jurisdiction to order the amendment of Executive Instrument (EI) 63. The High Court's decision, which addressed privacy rights and personal information protection in the digital age, had significant implications for the applicant/respondent.

The key issues in the appeal revolved around the adequacy of evidence supporting the damages, the weight of the affidavit evidence, and the court's authority to issue consequential orders related to the amendment of EI 63. The Court of Appeal applied legal principles concerning damages assessment, appellate review of evidence, and the separation of powers among branches of government. Reference was made to relevant case law on human rights violations, privacy rights, and the limits of judicial authority in legislative matters.

The Court of Appeal upheld the damages awarded by the High Court, noting that the respondent had substantiated personal human rights violations warranting compensation. However, the court agreed with the appellant that the orders for amending EI 63 and setting timelines for the same exceeded the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the consequential orders regarding the amendment were deemed invalid. The appeal against the damages award was dismissed, and costs were awarded in favor of the respondent against the appellant.