JONES vs. BUCKLE AND OTHERS [1977]DLHC1333

Date	1977-02-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLHC1333

OWUSU-ADDO J.

CANN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1977]DLHC1333
																																						<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" >JONES <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BUCKLE AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1977] 2 GLR 145<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:
2 FEBRUARY
1977<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">

CANN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

OWUSU-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OWUSU-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>I have
chosen to preface this ruling with a quotation from Cordery on Solicitors (5th
ed.) at p.118, from which I have derived some assistance in my attempt to
resolve the issues raised herein. It 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">“The
relationship existing between a solicitor and his client is recognised in
equity as a fiduciary one imposing on the solicitor special obligations. In his
dealings with his client the solicitor must exercise the utmost good faith, and
in any financial transaction with his client (save as to costs for work done)
there will be a presumption that such transaction should not be upheld unless
the solicitor can establish that it was effected by the free exercise of the
client’s will and without any influence on the part of the solicitor.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I do not
find it necessary here to reproduce the facts averred in the pleadings of this
suit. What I am called upon to decide as preliminary issues raised herein, are:
(1) whether Messrs. Gaisie, Zwennes and Hughes, a reputable firm of solicitors,
are competent to act as solicitors for the first defendant, and (2) whether Mr.
Brodie-Mends is competent to appear either as solicitor or counsel for reasons
which I shall relate later. There are in effect two preliminary objections, the
first being against the appearance of Messrs. Gaisie, Zwennes and Hughes as
solicitors and the second directed against Mr. Brodie-Mends both in his
capacity as solicitor and counsel for the first defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>What
provoked this objection in limine is that on 8 June 1976, a motion on notice
seeking an order for interim preservation of the subject-matter of the
litigation was filed on behalf of the first defendant by Messrs. Gaisie,
Zwennes and Hughes. The motion was brought under the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N.140A), Order 50, r.1, and hearing was fixed for
Monday, 12 July 1976. Mr. Brodie-Mends having announced himself as counsel for
the first defendant-applicant, Mr. Cann in a rather serious mood got up and
objected vehemently to his appearance in the suit. His main reason was that
some time in 1974 he did introduce a member of the plaintiff’s family to Mr.
Brodie-Mends with a view to representing them. He accepted the introduction and
acted. It was on the strength of the introduction that Mr. Brodie-Mends wrote a
letter to the first defendant on a letter head of Messrs. Gaisie, Scheck &amp;
Co., inviting him for discussion. It is marked exhibit A and the contents read:<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">“Dear
Sir, <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">We are
writing on the instructions of the following persons, all principal members of
the Efiekessim section of Ebiradze stool family of Cape Coast: Mr. D.E.
Asamoah, Mrs Comfort Quarcoo, Mrs. Grace Daitey, Mr. F.G. Asamoah, Mr. Emmanuel
Asamoah, Mr. K.B. Asamoah, Miss Elizabeth Asamoah, Miss Effua Ansah, Mesdames
Effua Kokuanoah, Araba Ken, Adjuah Yabah, Ekua Eson, Ekua Mensimah, Adjuah
Kakraba, Effuah Amoaba, Nana Essie, Ekua Forbah, Araba Kwekuenyiwa, Adjua
Kakraba and Mr. E.E. Otoo. According to our instructions, the government paid
to you the sum of ¢22,000.00 (twenty-two thousand cedis) in August 1972 as part
payment of compensation for the acquisition of property belonging to the
Ebiradze paramount stool family of Cape Coast. Our clients have reason to
believe that since then a further sum has been paid to you. It is our clients’
complaint that up to now you have not rendered account to any of them, though
they are all entitled to shares in the moneys paid to you by the government. We
have therefore been instructed to call upon you, and we hereby do call upon you
to render accounts in respect of the said sums of money paid to you by the
government as compensation for the Ebiradze stool property acquired by the
government within two weeks of the date hereof. Our instructions are
peremptory, and unless we hear favourably from you within two weeks of the date
hereof, we shall take legal proceedings against you to compel you to render
accounts.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>