STATE vs. AMOABENG [1966]DLHC1752

Date	1966-04-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC1752

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

KALEO-BIOH STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

K. E. AMUAH-SEKYI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLHC1752
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >STATE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AMOABENG <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 318<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
18 APRIL 1966.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KALEO-BIOH, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

K. E. AMUAH-SEKYI FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent was charged with the offence of unlawful assumption of the title of
solicitor contrary to section 9 (2) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960.1 The
facts that provided the grounds on which the charge was laid are that on or
about 10 February 1965 the respondent not being enrolled under the Legal
Profession Act, 1960, did take or use the title of solicitor. The respondent is
the sole proprietor of a business designated General Insurance Claims Agency
which has been registered under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1962.2
He wrote a letter the heading of which bore words which appeared to indicate
that the letter came from a firm of legal practitioners addressing the same to
the claims manager, Royal Exchange Assurance, Accra. The offending title reads
as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“General
Insurance Claims and Brokers Agency Solicitors, Commissioners for Oaths (Privy
Council Agents).”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The said
letter was tendered by the prosecution as exhibit F. The letter was signed by
the respondent “for General Insurance Claims and Brokers Agency” in his
capacity as “Claims Manager.” The prosecution called five witnesses. At the
close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Amuah-Sekyi, learned defence
counsel, made a submission of no case.<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial circuit judge, his honour Judge Okai upheld the submission and
discharged and acquitted the respondent. The appeal herein was filed against
the ruling of the learned trial circuit judge. Mr. Kaleo-Bioh, learned state
attorney, assailed the said ruling on the ground that it is bad in law. In his
said ruling the learned circuit judge after making the finding, said among
other things that “I am satisfied it is the agency that has taken or used the
title ‘solicitors’,” and concluded that the assumption of title was not made by
the respondent who is the owner of the business. Upon that basis he discharged
the respondent and acquitted him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
support of his ground of appeal, namely, that the ruling is wrong in law,
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the respondent is the
sole proprietor of the business, then whatever the agency did was in law and in
fact done by the proprietor. The agency, according to learned state attorney,
had no separate personality independent of the personality of the proprietor.
It was this misconception on the part of the learned circuit judge on the
question of legal personality, submitted learned state attorney which led to
the wrong conclusion in law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned counsel for the respondent conceded to the submission of learned state
attorney on the question of misconception of the legal position as to
personality but argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the
respondent “wilfully” assumed the name of solicitor. He submitted that the
ruling can be supported on that ground. In support of his argument learned
counsel for the respondent referred to the contents of exhibit F which in his
submission negatived any intention on the part of the respondent to make it
appear that he is a solicitor. He pointed out that the respondent signed
himself as “Claims Manager” and not as solicitor. The whole tenor of the
letter, according to him, showed that the respondent did not intend anybody to
think that he is a solicitor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
section of Act 32 under which the respondent was charged reads:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“If a
person who is not enrolled wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name
or title, or description implying that he is qualified or recognised as
qualified to act as a lawyer or barrister or solicitor he shall be liable to a
fine not exceeding £G50 or </main>