KWAA ARKU-KORSAH vs. KWEKU MENSAH (SUBSTITUTED BY AND KOBENA KORANTSEN & 37 ORS [2019]DLCA8718

Date	2019-05-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/17/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLCA8718

ADJEI J.A

SUURBAAREH J.A

AGBEVOR J.A

KORSAH BROWN FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

ALEXANDER ABBAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLCA8718
																																						<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" >KWAA ARKU-KORSAH<o:p></o:p><w:sdtpr></w:sdtpr>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
 mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
 color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>KWEKU MENSAH (SUBSTITUTED BY
 AND KOBENA KORANTSEN &amp; 37 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
 padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
 SUIT NO. H1/17/2018&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 2ND MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>
 </div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KORSAH BROWN FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
 padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
 ALEXANDER ABBAN FOR
 THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
 ADJEI J.A, SUURBAAREH
 J.A, AGBEVOR J.A<o:p></o:p>
 </div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
 padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
 <p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
 .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:
 none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
 solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>
 </div>ADJEI,
J.A:<o:p></o:p>The High Court, on 13th November 2015, delivered a ruling and
the defendants/appellants, dissatisfied with the ruling, filed an interlocutory
appeal to this court praying for the reversal of the order made on 3rd
December 2015.<o:p></o:p>The facts relevant to this appeal are that a lawyer was engaged to
conduct the case against the thirty-eight defendants/appellants at the court
below. However, three of them namely the 31st 35th and 37th
defendants filed a process in the court below to dispense with the services of
the lawyer. The process they filed to discharge their lawyer was in the nature
of an affidavit. The other defendants through the same lawyer filed a motion to
dismiss the process filed on grounds of incompetence. The trial High Court
judge granted the application and struck out the process as incompetent and
further made consequential orders disengaging the said lawyer from representing
the three aforesaid defendants because, to him, there were some ethical issues
raised in the affidavit. The defendants dissatisfied with the decision taken by
the trial High Court judge filed an interlocutory appeal to this court. The
notice of appeal contains three main grounds of appeal and they are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“ i.
The learned High Court Judge erred in law by relying on the bare, unsubstantiated
and untested evidence of the 31st, 35th and 37th
defendants to hold that Counsel for the defendants had acted wrongly in
representing the named defendants.<o:p></o:p>ii.
That the learned High Court Judge further erred in law when he based his subsequent
Orders on an incompetent and expunged process of Court, ie ‘submission to due
judgment’<o:p></o:p>iii.
The learned High Court Judge displayed bias against defendants’ Counsel when he
held that ‘the affidavits on both sides raised serious ethical issues’ instead
of reprimanding learned Counsel for the plaintiff for his admission ‘for
composing the affidavit’ of submission to due judgment for the three
defendants.”<o:p></o:p>The general principle of law is that an appeal is by way of rehearing.
Therefore, this court is duty bound to rehear the appeal and correct all errors
arising therefrom. Rule 8 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (CI 19) provides
that an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be by way of rehearing and shall be
commenced by a notice of appeal. Therefore, any ground of appeal should be
directed against either a comment or a decision rendered by the court. Where an
appellant files a ground of appeal and that ground of appeal cannot be
discerned from the record it is not sustainable.<o:p></o:p>