EKWAN v. EWUSIE XIX; BOTCHEY vs. EWUSIE XIX (CONSOLIDATED) [1979]DLHC1057

Date	1979-01-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1057

OSEI-HWERE J.

KWESI AGGREY FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.

A. ABOAGYE DA COSTA IN PERSON.

[1979]DLHC1057
																																						<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" >EKWAN v. EWUSIE XIX; BOTCHEY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>EWUSIE XIX (CONSOLIDATED)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 171<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:
24 JANUARY 1979<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">

KWESI AGGREY FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

A. ABOAGYE DA COSTA IN PERSON.<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 1.0pt 0in">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant brought this motion praying this court to restrain Mr. Alex Aboagye
da Costa from acting as counsel and solicitor for and on behalf of the
plaintiffs in the above consolidated suits. His reasons, as disclosed in his
supporting affidavit, are that some time in 1976 he engaged Mr. Aboagye da
Costa as counsel and solicitor for himself and on behalf of the Fetteh stool in
respect of Fetteh stool lands, then in dispute, in boundary settlement dispute
No. 10/76. In October 1978 the said Mr. Aboagye da Costa ceased to act as
counsel and solicitor for and on behalf of himself and the said Fetteh stool.
According to him, as all valid documents in respect of the said Fetteh stool
lands are at present in the possession and custody of the said Mr. Aboagye da
Costa, it came to him as a surprise when on the commencement of these actions
by the plaintiffs against him in November 1978 (i.e. barely one month after Mr.
Aboagye da Costa had ceased to act as solicitor for him and the stool) he
noticed that this same gentleman was acting as solicitor for the plaintiffs who
had sued him in respect of portions of the same Fetteh stool lands. The
defendant in his supporting affidavit went on to castigate the conduct of Mr.
Aboagye da Costa as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(7) I am
informed and believe same to be true that it is highly improper for Mr. Aboagye
da Costa to use the facts and information which he acquired while acting in his
capacity as solicitor for me and the Fetteh stool in respect of the same Fetteh
stool lands against me and the Fetteh stool in respect of the same Fetteh stool
lands. (8) I am further informed and I verily believe same to be true that it
is even more improper for Mr. Aboagye da Costa to continue to act for the
plaintiffs herein in view of the very short period between the time he ceased
to act for me and the Fetteh stool and the time he took instructions from the plaintiffs
herein.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Aboagye da Costa filed his affidavit in opposition. He admits he is the
solicitor to the plaintiffs in a suit pending between them and the defendant.
He further conceded that he had been acting as a solicitor for the Gomoa Fetteh
stool at the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commission from 1972 to about
September 1978. The defendant subsequently wrote to him in October 1978 to
inform him that he and his elders did not require his services any longer and
subsequently a notice of appointment of solicitor was served on him through the
registry of the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commission. He deposed that
the document he had in his possession related to the entire boundary of Fetteh
stool lands being a map which does not indicate ownership of separate lands and
farms which in any way can be used in land suits between aspiring claimants of
respective lands. At any rate, he went on, the plaintiffs herein were the first
persons to engage him to work on the boundary settlement dispute and they were
authorized by the defendant to prosecute the claim of the stool at the
commission. He maintained that as he did not represent the chief personally but
the entire Fetteh people he has every right to protect the interest of any
subject or group of subjects against the arbitrariness of the defendant. The
respondent exhibited photostat copies of (a) the defendant’s letter authorizing
the plaintiffs to consult the respondent in connection with a petition relating
to the Fetteh stool lands; (b) a letter from the respondent advising the
defendant against making further leases of the stool lands; (c) another letter
from the respondent to the defendant concerning leases of the stool lands; and
(d) the notice of appointment of solicitor. The respondent sought to impress
upon the court that it was on account of his letters to the defendant that he
discharged him as solicitor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
motion brings into perspective the obligations of a solicitor towards his
client who has discharged him. Although a solicitor is under a professional
obligation to observe the standard of conduct required of members of his
profession, yet any matter of professional ethics outside the court is not a
matter for the jurisdiction of the court but for the appropriate disciplinary
body that supervises his profession: see, for instance, the dicta of Hodson
L.J. in Davies v. Davies [1960] 3 All E.R. 248 at p. 250, C.A. But a solicitor
is under obligations to the court as its officer, and these obligations may be
enforced in proceedings before the court. As an officer of the court the
highest integrity is demanded of him; and it is thus that he will be amenable
to the jurisdiction of the court if any improper conduct is alleged against
him. One of the absolute obligations imposed on a solicitor who is or has been
retained by a client is not to disclose confidential information which has come
to his knowledge as solicitor for the client, and, like any other agent; but in
a higher degree because of his position as an officer of the court and also the
privileges which the law allows to legal professional confidences, he is bound
to observe the utmost good faith towards his client. The court will, therefore,
grant an injunction to prevent any breach of t</main>