GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER vs. WARD-BREW [1990]DLHC747

Date	1990-08-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLHC747

OMARI-SASU J.

THOMAS WARD-BREW FOR HIMSELF THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

NANA AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.

[1990]DLHC747
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">WARD-BREW<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 2 GLR 509<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date: 20 AUGUST 1990<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>THOMAS WARD-BREW FOR HIMSELF, THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">NANA AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE
DEFENDANT-APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF OMARI-SASU J.<o:p></o:p>This is an interlocutory application on notice by the
defendant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) praying this
court for an order to strike out the plaintiff-respondent’s writ of summons and
statement of claim in the action herein as being vexatious and an abuse of the
process of this court.<o:p></o:p>The applicants contend that the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the respondent) is a member of the first applicant-association
and as such a member, the respondent is bound by the provisions of the first
applicant’s constitution and all regulations made thereunder. Further, it is
said the basis for the respondent’s pending action is his alleged
disqualification by the second applicant from contesting for the post of national
secretary of the first applicant-association; but as the respondent and others
filed defective papers and the respondent, like the others, was given a chance
to rectify the defects and yet he failed to respond to the call, his writ and
statement of claim should be struck out.<o:p></o:p>From paragraph (5) of the second applicant’s affidavit in support
of the present application, he additionally says:<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 grounds of the respondent’s disqualification were:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a).&nbsp; “Non-compliance of his
sponsors with the financial regulations of the first applicant association; and
<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(b).&nbsp;
“The respondent’s violation and non-observance of resolutions of
the first applicant association, eg the respondent’s appearance before the
public tribunal.”<o:p></o:p>Finally it was vehemently canvassed by the applicants that their
electoral regulations contained domestic remedies which aggrieved candidates
for elections were expected to exhaust and since the respondent failed to avail
himself of any of these, his present action should be struck out under Order
25, r 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A).<o:p></o:p>On the respondent’s part, he is of the view that the three
allegations made against him and his nominators, namely that he filed detective
papers; that he himself and his nominators were not of good standing and that
he had acted in open defiance of a resolution of the applicants asking members
of the applicant-association not to appear before the public tribunals of Ghana
are all different ways of stating only one case—to wit, that the respondent had
been challenged the legality of the applicants’ said preventive resolution in
his pending declaratory action and since the substantive action has not been
heard, his writ and statement of claim should be retained under Order 25, r 5
of LN 140A.<o:p></o:p>Finally, the respondent admits he has not exhausted any of the
domestic remedies mentioned under regulation 8 of the Regulations on the
Qualifications, Nomination and Election of National Officers of the Ghana Bar
Association (which came into force on 1 November 1988) because neither the
electoral officer, the electoral committee nor the general council of the bar
have power to annul the resolution in question, which resolution was passed by
an annual conference; for the said resolution raises grave legal and
constitutional issues involving the rig</main>