REPUBLIC vs. GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE; EX PARTE ABOAGYE-DA COSTA [1987]DLCA672

REPUBLIC vs. GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE; EX PARTE ABOAGYE-DA... [1987]DLCA672

Date	1987-07-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLCA672

TAYLOR J.S.C.

OSEI-HWERE JA

AMPIAH J.A.

THE APPLICANT IN PERSON.

MRS. C. A. ANSON CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1987]DLCA672
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL DISCIPLINARY<o:p></o:p>COMMITTEE; EX PARTE ABOAGYE-DA COSTA<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 104<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:
27
JULY 1989<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">

THE APPLICANT 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 0in 0in">

TAYLOR J.S.C., OSEI-HWERE AND AMPIAH
JJ.A. <o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is a
motion for a stay of execution of the order made by the disciplinary committee
of the General Legal Council against Mr. A. A. Aboagye-da Costa. By that order
he was suspended for twelve months as a legal practitioner in our courts. It
was in connection with a charge of professional misconduct under section 9 (7)
of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (L.I.
613) which he faced on 11 May 1989, the date of the order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We heard
argument this morning but because of the impending legal vacation we adjourned
for two hours to consider the application, which we now proceed to dispose of.
The gravamen of the charge contained in the particulars is stated as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Alex
Aboagye-da Costa (lawyer) between April 1986 and 1987 at Asamankese in the
Eastern Region in his dealings with his client, Nana Bosompem Awuah, did not
behave with utmost honesty and frankness.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is a
charge of misconduct against a professional man, and the practice in our courts
is that the burden is on those making the accusation to establish the charge.<o:p></o:p>This
manner of considering cases of misconduct is in consonance with section 15 (1)
of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (N.R.C.D. 323). To find out therefore if those
with the legal obligation of making out the charge have indeed done so, it is
necessary to have a look at the proceedings; but unfortunately in his affidavit
in support of his application, the applicant has deposed that he applied for a
copy of the record of proceedings and as of now he has not been supplied with
the said record. We are consequently in no position to decide whether those in
charge of the inquiry did, in accordance with law, fulfil their statutory
obligation. And we are not unmindful of the fact that those in charge of the
inquiry have the responsibility to supply the record of proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
application for the suspension or stay of execution of the disciplinary
sanction imposed in this case by the disciplinary committee is not unlike an
application for bail pending appeal in criminal cases since it is a
disciplinary punitive measure taken against a person on a charge of wrongdoing.
We think the principles that our courts have built up over the years in
applications for bail can mutatis mutandis be applied in such a case. It will
be recalled that in State v. Halm, Court of Appeal, 27 July 1967, unreported,
Akufo-Addo C.J. said:<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">&nbsp;“The grant of bail to a convicted prisoner
pending the hearing of his appeal is an unusual course which may be adopted
only in exceptional circumstances. Such exceptional circumstances may be that
(1) the conviction is prima facie wrong and the appeal therefore has obvious
prospects of success. Coupled with this is: (2) the probability that having
regard to the shortness of the sentence imposed the hearing of the appeal may
be unduly delayed.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
application the applicant would seem to ask for a stay of execution on two main
grounds. The first ground is tha</main>