THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIV.) ACCRA EXPARTE: JUSTIN PWAVRA TERIWAJAH AND HENRY NUERTEY KORBOE [2013]DLSC2703

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIV.) ACCRA EXPARTE: JUSTIN PWAVRA TERIW... [2013]DLSC2703

Date	2013-12-11
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/7/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2703

G. T. WOOD (MRS) C J (PRESIDING)

R. C. OWUSU (MS) JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

P. BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

J. B. AKAMBA JSC

JUSTIN PWAVRA TERIWAJAH APPEARS FOR HIMSELF AND THE 2ND APPLICANT.

NANCY AMPOFO FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.

[2013]DLSC2703
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK
DIV.) ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE: JUSTIN PWAVRA
TERIWAJAH AND HENRY NUERTEY KORBOE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/7/2013&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
11TH
DECEMBER, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JUSTIN PWAVRA TERIWAJAH
APPEARS FOR HIMSELF AND THE 2ND APPLICANT.<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">

NANCY
AMPOFO FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.<o:p></o:p>

G. T. WOOD (MRS) C J (PRESIDING), R. C. OWUSU (MS)
JSC, ANIN YEBOAH &nbsp;JSC, P. BAFFOE-BONNIE
JSC,J. B. AKAMBA JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ANIN-YEBOAH, JSC: <o:p></o:p>This application which seeks
to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 132 of the
1992 Constitution raises issues the determination of which will affect all
legal practitioners in Ghana. To appreciate the basis of this ruling, the facts
which appear not to be controverted are as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Reiss and Company (Ghana)
Limited, a corporate body commenced an action at the High Court (Fast Track
Division) Accra, intituled as: SUIT № AC 54/2009; REISS &amp; COMPANY (GHANA)
LIMITED v HENRY NORTEY KORBOE, (2) HEKOMA GHANA LIMITED, (3) SHELASH GHANA
LIMITED and SHIRLEY KORBOE (NEE LAMPTEY). The claim was for a liquidated sum of
GH¢920,000.00 and other ancillary reliefs not very necessary to recite in this
delivery. Upon service of the writ and the accompanying statement of claim,
HENRY NUERTEY KORBOE and HEKOMA GHANA LIMITED, engaged the first applicant
herein (who was at the time material a practising lawyer) to represent them in
the suit. In the affidavit in support of this application, HENRY NUERTEY KORBOE
the deponent, swore that after the first applicant had taken over the conduct
of the case, he detected that orders made in the case prior to his engagement
as a lawyer, were palpably irregular. As a lawyer, the first applicant filed a
motion to vary or vacate the alleged irregular orders already made at the trial
court. This, as usual was seriously opposed by the interested party by filing a
notice of preliminary objection and an affidavit. The basis of the objection
which was apparent in the affidavit was that, the first applicant herein, on
filing the motion did not disclose his Solicitor’s Licence Number for the year
2013 on the motion paper. It was also raised as an objection that the first
applicant not having taken any practising Licence for 2013 was incompetent to
sign a motion and that same contravenes section 8(1) of the Legal Profession
Act, 1960 (Act 32). The first applicant admitted that a similar objection was
raised in an earlier suit that he had no practicing license for 2013 and
further, his chambers had not been registered with the General Legal Council as
enjoined by LI 613 and Act 32.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The learned judge proceeded
to enforce the law and therefore held that there was clear breach of section 8
of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32 and Rule 4(4) of the Legal Profession
(Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules 1969 (LI 613) and dismissed the
application to vacate or vary&nbsp; the
interlocutory injunction granted against the second applicant and held further
that the first applicant herein was incompetent to represent the second
applicant as his client in view of the breach of the two statutes referred to
above. The applicants complain that the first applicant had raised the
following constitutional issues which the learned trial judge refused to refer
same to the Supreme Court for interpretation:<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not
the Second Schedule to section 8 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) is
unconstitutional and hence void on the grounds that it contravenes Article
107(b) of the Constitution 1992 to the extent that it mandated the General
Legal Council to issue solicitor’s licences to lawyers to take adverse
retrospective effect on the right of a lawyer to practice law;<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not
upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 107(b) and Article 296 (a) and
(b) vis-á-vis section 8 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act </main>