THE REPUBLIC vs. THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL EX PARTE: NII KPAKPO SAMOA ADDO AND SIKA ABLA ADDO [2017]DLHC3475

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL EX PARTE: NII KPAKPO SAMOA ADDO AND S... [2017]DLHC3475

Date	2017-12-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CR/229/17
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3475

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2017]DLHC3475
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: NII KPAKPO SAMOA ADDO AND SIKA ABLA ADDO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (GENERAL
JURISDICTION DIVISION), 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">

SUIT
NO.CR/229/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 18TH DECEMBER, 2017<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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Applicants have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction
of the High Court under Order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Procedure
Rules, C.I 47 for orders in the nature of certiorari and prohibition directed
at the General Legal Council for the purposes of quashing a charge sheet dated
29th March, 2017 and the charge itself contained in the charge
sheet.<o:p></o:p>The grounds for praying for the issuance of certiorari
and prohibition have been provided by the Applicants in the motion paper as:<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;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lack of jurisdiction<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;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Breach of natural justice<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;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Illegality<o:p></o:p>The factual basis for the invocation of the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court by the Applicants have been stated in the affidavits
deposed to by the 1st Applicant that accompanied the application
which may be summarized as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That on the 3rd of July, 2014 one Nii Adjei
Browne petitioned the General Legal Council on the basis that the 1st
Applicant, then an Attorney at the chambers of the Attorney-General had used
his position to unjustly enrich himself by registering a private law firm
called Addo, Addo Legal Attorneys, where cases that were being prosecuted by 1st
Applicant on behalf of the Republic were referred to that private law firm for
legal representations. Further allegations of entering into illegal contracts
for money sharing with persons whose funds had been frozen by the State and
thereby failing to use his best endeavours to prosecute such cases was also
made by Nii Adjei Browne.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1st Applicant then claim that the
Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council accordingly wrote to him on
the 8th of July, 2014 inviting their comments to the petition. On
the 14th of July, 2014, Applicants claiming that their reputation
and fame had been lowered in the estimation of right thinking Ghanaians by the
said allegations and publication on the internet, commenced a legal suit in the
High Court claiming damages for defamation against Nii Adjei Browne. On that
same day in a response of the Applicants to the Disciplinary Committee of the 8th
of July, 2014, 1st Applicant claim that it wrote to the Respondent
informing it that it had commenced legal proceedings against Nii Adjei Browne
and was therefore unable to accede to their invitation. In respect of the 2nd
Applicant she claimed that she had been granted leave due to pregnancy related
medical condition. To Applicants in view of the pendency of the Suit No GJ
690/2016, it would be prejudicial for them to appear before the Disciplinary
Committee of the General Legal Council.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applicants again questions the propriety of a charge
sheet served on them wherein they are charged with ‘grave misconduct in a professional respect, contrary to section 19(5)
of the Legal Profession Act, 1960, Act 32”. To Applicants the charge they
are facing is in essence a criminal charge and it was only the Attorney-General
that was mandated by the Consti</main>