AYARNA AND ANOTHER vs. AGYEMANG AND OTHERS [1976]DLCA363

Date	1976-02-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA363

APALOO J.A

ARCHER J.A

ANIN JJ.A.

GOODHEAD FOR THE FIRST APPELLANT.

R. I. QUANSAH FOR THE SECOND APPELLANT.

AGYEMANG-BEMPAH FOR HIMSELF AND OTHER RESPONDENTS.

[1976]DLCA363
																																						<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" >AYARNA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>AGYEMANG AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 306<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
9 FEBRUARY 1976.<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">

GOODHEAD FOR THE FIRST APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

R. I. QUANSAH FOR THE SECOND APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

AGYEMANG-BEMPAH FOR HIMSELF AND OTHER RESPONDENTS.<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">

APALOO, ARCHER AND ANIN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo J.
delivered the judgment of the court. The respondents (hereafter called the
plaintiffs) are all qualified lawyers and were enrolled under the Legal
Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32), to practise their profession. The appellants,
i.e. the defendants, are father and son and both seemed to be in business of
some sort in or about 1973. Some time that year, the first defendant was
charged with subversion and pending trial, was kept in custody. The offence was
one which carried the death penalty. As was only to be expected, he was
desirous of being defended by a lawyer of his own choice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As he was
himself in custody, he seems to have asked his wife to brief counsel on his
behalf. The first plaintiff was accordingly instructed on behalf of the first
defendant. It is only natural that there should be some discussion about
professional fees but it is clear no sum was agreed between Mrs. Ayarna and the
first plaintiff. At Mrs. Ayarna’s request, the first plaintiff interviewed the
first defendant in custody and the latter was agreeable that the first
plaintiff should represent him. He expressed completed confidence in him.
Although they are now in serious disagreement on matters to be presently
mentioned, the evidence suggests that the first plaintiff’s professional
performance at the trial met with the first defendant’s complete satisfaction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
obvious that a charge of this gravity required the services of more than one
lawyer and it seems clear that the second plaintiff was also instructed by the
first defendant’s wife to join in the defence. He agreed and the documents,
exhibited in evidence, show that he was also formally approved by the first
defendant. Although two other lawyers joined in the defence of the first
defendant, both the first and second plaintiffs seemed to have had the conduct
of the case. Both are lawyers of recognised standing and experience. As we
said, two other lawyers were announced as appearing for the first defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
latter said they were not briefed by him and were not instructed on his behalf
by his wife. It was suggested that the third plaintiff came in to assist and
did so merely on grounds of friendship. The fourth plaintiff is the younger
brother of the first plaintiff and shared his chambers. It was suggested on
behalf of the defendants that he entered into the team at the behest of his
brother. The first defendant denied that he contracted with them and was
legally liable to pay them fees.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In view
of the course this case took and which we are soon to relate, these matters
were not investigated. As we said, the second defendant is the natural son of
the first defendant. He was not charged with any offence and did not require
legal professional services as such. He appears to have been brought into the
picture to help secure funds to meet his father’s professional fees. He seems
to have had the full authority of the first defendant to do this, and if need
be, to dispose of the first defendant’s landed property which was acquired in
his name. He met with no success. Mrs. Ayarna was more successful. She was able
to raise ¢4,000.00; ¢3,000.00 of this was paid to the first plaintiff and
¢1,000.00 was handed to the second plaintiff. The evidence shows that the
second defendant made attempts to dispose of the first defendant’s house at
Kotobabi to meet the payment of counsel’s fees. Again he was unsuccessful.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>