AKUFO-ADDO AND OTHERS vs. QUARSHIE IDUN AND OTHERS [1968]DLHC16802

Date	1968-07-22
Suit No.	[1968] GLR 667-688
Citation No.	[1968]DLHC16802

AMISSAH J.A

KINGSLEY-NYINAH

ARCHER

BAIDOO

ANNAN JJ

R. J HAYFRON-BENJAMIN

F. SARKODEE

J. MERCER

BENTSI-ENCHILL

KOFI SACKEY

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS

SARPONG

[1968]DLHC16802
																																						<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" >AKUFO-ADDO AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>QUARSHIE IDUN
AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 4.5pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 4.5pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

R. J HAYFRON-BENJAMIN,
SOLICITOR-GENERAL WITH HIM F. SARKODEE, STATE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p>

J. MERCER WITH HIM
BENTSI-ENCHILL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

KOFI SACKEY FOR 2ND
RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS WITH HIM
SARPONG FOR 3RD RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>AMISSAH J.A., KINGSLEY-NYINAH,
ARCHER, BAIDOO AND ANNAN JJ. <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 4.5pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AMISSAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>Amissah
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from a decision of
Anterkyi J. granting an interim injunction against some of the defendants in
this action.&nbsp; The three plaintiffs, each of whom is a lawyer of
considerable standing in the community, sued the Chief Justice, the Judicial
Secretary and the General Legal Council. The plaintiffs complained that through
the conduct of the defendants, namely, by the issue of certain circulars to
judicial officers they had been denied their right of audience as barristers in
the courts. They therefore sought a declaration of that right together with an
injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with its exercise. After
issuing their writ and filing their statement of claim the plaintiffs made the
application for the interim injunction. Argument having been heard, the learned
judge gave a considered ruling in which he concluded that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"In
the result the application for an order of interim injunction succeeds as
against each of the first and second defendants in his personal capacity or in
any official capacity, whatsoever, and I therefore hereby make an order
restraining those defendants from avoiding or declaring void in any manner
whatsoever [p.671] the status of each of the plaintiffs as a barrister and his
consequent right of audience in all the courts and commissions of inquiry
sitting in the State of Ghana, and also restraining each of the first and
second defendants from taking any steps for that purpose, or from in any way
interfering with the exercise by each plaintiff of his rights or privileges
incident to his right as a barrister until trial or further action."<o:p></o:p>In
at least one respect the order was much wider than the relief asked for.&nbsp;
The plaintiffs had complained of the defendants' action in their official
capacities and had asked for the temporary restraint to be placed on them in
those capacities.&nbsp; The order covered both their official and personal
capacities. Yet in another respect the order was narrower than the relief
requested.&nbsp; The plaintiffs asked that all three defendants be
restrained.&nbsp; The order restrained only the first defendant, the Chief
Justice and the second defendant, the Judicial Secretary.&nbsp; The third
defendant, the General Legal Council upon whose authority the other defendants
had, according to the parties themselves, acted, was left unrestrained. The
considerations which led to the grant of the order in this form will be more
fully discussed presently.&nbsp; The defendants affected by the order have
appealed to this court to test its soundness.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Before
dealing with the substantive matters of the appeal, we think we ought to
dispose of the questions raised about the composition of this court.&nbsp; The
argument of the appeal began and almost ended with an attack on the court's
composition.&nbsp; The more serious of the two objections was the first in
point of time.&nbsp; It had as its foundation the principle of natural justice
that a man should not&nbsp; be a judge in his own cause.&nbsp; We dismissed it,
reserving our reasons until the judgment.&nbsp; These we now give.<o:p></o:p>Mr.
Mercer, with whom other learned counsel for the respondents associated
themselves, declared at the opening that the respondents were not happy about
the constitution of the bench.&nbsp; From paragraph 6 (1) of the Courts Decree,
1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), he submitted, it was the Chief Justice who had to invite a
judge of the High Court to join a bench of this court. The Chief Justice was,
however, an appellant in the suit.&nbsp; Natural justice required that he
should not exercise the function to invite judges to constitute the
court.&nbsp; Unless satisf</main>