THE REPUBLIC vs. JUSTICE ANIN YEBOAH AND OTHERS EX PARTE FRANCISCA SERWAA BOATENG [2018]DLHC3498

THE REPUBLIC vs. JUSTICE ANIN YEBOAH AND OTHERS EX PARTE FRANCISCA SERWAA BOATEN... [2018]DLHC3498

Date	2018-03-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CR/60/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3498

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

APPLICANT IN PERSON

NANA YAW NTRAKWAH ESQ WITH WITH AKOSUA AKOMAH ASIAMAH FOR

THE 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS

[2018]DLHC3498
																																						<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>JUSTICE ANIN YEBOAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE FRANCISCA SERWAA BOATENG<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (GENERAL
JURISDICTION DIVISION 7), 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/60/17&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 29TH MARCH, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>APPLICANT
IN PERSON<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">

NANA YAW NTRAKWAH, ESQ WITH WITH AKOSUA
AKOMAH ASIAMAH FOR THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD, 4TH
AND 6TH RESPONDENTS <o:p></o:p>

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>The
need to uphold legal professional standards, the administration and supervision
of legal education, among others, were some of the lofty goals that
precipitated the establishment of the General Legal Council (hereinafter simply
referred to as the GLC) under the Legal Profession Act, Act 32 of 1960. The 1st
Respondent, a Justice of the Supreme Court and the chairperson of the
Disciplinary Committee of GLC, the 2nd Respondent&nbsp; a Justice of the Court of Appeal whilst the 3rd
to 5th Respondents are lawyers of renown within the jurisdiction and
members of the Disciplinary Committee of the GLC. The 6th Respondent
on the other hand is an office clerk of the GLC. The Respondents have been
hauled before this court on a quasi-criminal charge of contempt wherein the
Applicant, a lawyer in private practice is seeking an order for committal of
the Respondents for contempt in what she claims that the Respondents have acted
in a manner that is disrespectful of the court and calls for their punishment.
A background to this application would suffice to illume ones appreciation of
this proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Disciplinary Committee being the statutory body mandated to investigate
petitions and complaints from the public against lawyers to the GLC, one David
Morrell claiming to be acting on behalf of its principal, VPS International Bv
of Netherlands filed a complaint on the 22nd of January, 201 against
the Applicant for overcharging his principal in terms of legal fees in a suit conducted
by the Applicant before the High Court. As part of its routine procedure for
investigating petitions filed against lawyers the Disciplinary Committee wrote
to the Applicant for her response to the petition filed by Davis Morrell. Applicant
responded to the complaint on the 3rd of March, 2015 challenging the
capacity of David Morrell to file the complaint on the ground that David
Morrell had never been her client. VPS International BV subsequently issued a
writ in Suit No CM/0066/15 at the Commercial Division of the High Court which
suit is still pending. Desirous of performing its statutory duty by
investigating the allegations made by David Morrell, the Disciplinary Committee
invited the Applicant to appear before it whereupon the Applicant initially declined
the invitation on the ground that in view of the pendency of Suit No CM/0066/15
before the court she was unable to appear before the Committee. From the
exhibits attached to the application it appears that the Applicant made an
appearance before the Committee on the 23rd of February, 2017, 27th
of April, 2017 and the 1st of June, 2017. Applicant however, failed
to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on the 6th of July, 2017.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Applicant piqued by the process of the Disciplinary Committee on that same date
of 6th of July, 2017 filed before the High Court an application for judicial
review seeking declarations and an order for prohibition against the
Respondents claiming among others that David Morrell did not have capacity to
petition the Disciplinary Committee, want of jurisdiction on the part of the
Disciplinary Committee to entertain the petition of David Morrell and an order
of prohibition directed against the Respondents from proceeding to investigate
the complaint.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:
auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:
auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">To Applicant the Respondents have been
served with her application for judicial review and yet per a letter delivered
to her by the 6th Respondent as well as an EMS courier service, she
was invited to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on the 27th
of July, 2017 and threatening her with criminal sanctions. And as if that was
not enough, Applicant further claim that these were followed by another letter
signed on behalf of the 1st Respondent inviting her to appear before
the Disciplinary Committee which said letter failed to refer to her application
for judicial review pending before the Court and thus precipitating her to file
for an order of injunction to restrain the Respondents from proceeding with the
hearings till the application for judicial review had been determined.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:
auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">