SAMUEL NYAMEKYE vs. THOMAS TWUM [2017]DLHC4120

Date	2017-05-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO.OCC 183/2015
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4120

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

HUMPHREY OMABOE FOR THE PLAINTIFF

KOJO DEI KWARTENG FOR DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC4120
																																						<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" >SAMUEL NYAMEKYE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THOMAS TWUM<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO.OCC 183/2015&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: 31ST MAY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>HUMPHREY OMABOE FOR THE
PLAINTIFF <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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This is an application to
set aside judgment in default of defence granted on 5th of July, 2016.<o:p></o:p>The grounds of the application
are contained in the affidavit in support and supplementary affidavit in
support of the motion filed on 2/02/2017 and 27/03/2017 respectively.<o:p></o:p>The Respondents are
opposed to the application and have demonstrated the grounds in the affidavit
in opposition and supplementary affidavit in opposition to the motion filed on
15/02/2017 and 10/04/2017 respectively. <o:p></o:p>Both parties also filed
their statements of case on 28/04/2017 and 21/04/2017 respectively. <o:p></o:p>As part of his submissions
to the court, Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent has raised a preliminary
legal objection which borders on the competence of this application. He
submitted that counsel for the Defendant/Applicant, Kwadwo Dei-Kwarteng Esq has
no locus to bring the instant application having voluntarily withdrawn his
representation for the Defendant as far back as 29th February, 2016.
He submitted that counsel for the applicant is acting without authority. He
cited Order 5 rule 1 and Order 75 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004
(CI 47) and submitted that counsel’s behavior is also contemptuous of the
court.<o:p></o:p>I intend to deal with this
preliminary legal issue since the competence of a lawyer is fundamental to the
validity of any process filed by him as well as the subsequent proceedings. See
Henry Nuertey Korboe v Francis Amosa,
Suit No. J4/56/2014, Supreme Court, Accra 21/04/2016. <o:p></o:p>Counsel for the
Defendant/Applicant entered conditional appearance on behalf of the latter on
10th June, 2015. This was done in line with Order 4 rule 1(1) of CI
47 which provides:&nbsp; “Subject to these
Rules, any person may begin and carry on proceedings in person or by a lawyer.”<o:p></o:p>Counsel carried on with
his representation of the Defendant/Applicant until he filed the notice of his
withdrawal from the case on 29th February, 2016. The effect of
counsel’s notice of withdrawal is that in the absence the appointment of a new
lawyer the defendant was deemed to be acting in person from the date the said
notice was filed, as counsel was no longer representing him.<o:p></o:p>I do recognize that a
person who acts in person in a case may at any time appoint a lawyer of his
choice or as it were re-appoint his former lawyer to act in the matter on his
behalf. See Order 75 rule 1(3) of CI 47. Such changes in representation must,
however, cause the lawyer or the party involved to file a notice of appointment
or re-appointment of the said lawyer at the registry of the appropriate court
as required by Order 75 rule 3.<o:p></o:p>In the instant case,
counsel has reappeared in the matter without recourse to the laid down
procedure – no notice of appointment or re-appointment has been filed. This
breach of the rules is akin to a lawyer filling a process without a license. It
is not a mere irregularity and as such Order 81 of CI 47 cannot cure this
defect.<o:p></o:p>In the light of the above,
I am unable to go into the merits of the substantive motion than to strike the
motion out. The motion is hereby struck out as incompetent.<o:p></o:p>There will be no order as
to costs.<o:p></o:p>&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;<o:p></o:p>