NORTHERN ENGINEERING CO., LTD. vs. DJOKOTOE [1979]DLHC1090

Date	1979-04-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1090

TAYLOR J.

A. A. LUGUTERAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-APPLICANTS.

G. K. MENSA-ETSI FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLHC1090
																																						<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" >NORTHERN ENGINEERING CO., LTD. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DJOKOTOE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 332<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:
4 JUNE 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">

A. A. LUGUTERAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

G. K. MENSA-ETSI FOR THE DEFENDANT-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 1.0pt 0in">

TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs,
the Northern Engineering Co., Ltd. claim against the defendant, Mr. C. K. A.
Djokotoe, the sum of ¢5,306.80 being the amount which the defendant is alleged
to have caused to be paid to one Cletus K. Amoah from the plaintiffs’ funds
without the lawful authority of the plaintiffs. The writ of summons was
specially endorsed and so proceeding under the provisions of Order 14 of the
High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), the plaintiffs have moved
the court for liberty to enter judgment against the defendant for the claim so
endorsed on the said writ of summons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
hearing of the application, counsel for the defendant has raised a preliminary
objection to the locus standi of Mr. A. A. Luguterah, the counsel for the
plaintiffs in these proceedings, to act as solicitor or counsel for the said
plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as N.E.C. where appropriate). He has
pointed out that Mr. A. A. Luguterah is the acting managing director of the
N.E.C. He has also drawn attention to a fact conceded by Mr. A. A. Luguterah
that he, Mr. Luguterah, is a practising lawyer. On the basis of these facts he
argues that by the provisions of rule 1 (2) (a) of the Legal Profession
(Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (L.I. 613), Mr. Luguterah is
not entitled to act as solicitor or counsel in this case.<o:p></o:p>The
relevant provisions of the rules are:<o:p></o:p>“1. (1) a
lawyer in practice is—<o:p></o:p>(a) a
lawyer who is entitled to practise and who holds himself out as ready to do so,
or is employed in a whole-time occupation where he performs legal duties; or
(b) a lawyer whose regular occupation is that of editor or reporter of any
series of Law Reports entirely written and edited by lawyers for use by the
legal profession. (2) A practising lawyer shall not—<o:p></o:p>(a) Be a
managing director or executive chairman in any company or an active partner in any
business. <o:p></o:p>(b) carry
on any other profession or business which conflicts or involves a serious risk
of conflict with his duties as a practising lawyer; Provided that the General
Legal Council may for the avoidance of doubt give a ruling on an application
made to it in writing in any particular case as whether a profession or
business conflicts or involves a serious risk of conflict with the duties of a
person as a practising lawyer.”<o:p></o:p>I must
say at this stage that I find Mr. Mensa-Etsi’s argument very simple and
straightforward having regard to the language of rule 1 (2) (a) of L.I. 613.
However, as against his argument, Mr. Luguterah as counsel for the N.E.C. has
submitted that the preliminary objection is misconceived. He cited the
provisions of section 208 of the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 179), which
provides:<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">“208.
Unless otherwise provided in the company’s Regulations, any director may,
notwithstanding section 205 of this Code, act by himself or his firm in a
professional capacity for the company, except as auditor, and he or his firm
shall be entitled to proper remuneration for professional services as if he
were not a director.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It will
be recalled that under section 205 of the Companies Code, 1963, a director is
enjoined, inter alia, not to place himself in a position where his duty to the
company conflicts or </main>