TORBUI HUTEHU vs. GEORGE AND DBES ENGINEERING LTD [2019]DLHC6906

Date	2019-07-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ 304/19
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6906

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR ESQ JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2019]DLHC6906
																																						<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" >TORBUI
HUTEHU<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GEORGE AND
DBES ENGINEERING LTD<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 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: GJ 304/19&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH
JULY, 2019<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, ESQ., 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">

</div>It
is stated under section 43 of the Legal Profession Act, Act 32 that:<o:p></o:p>“Every person
who draws or prepares any legal document for reward shall endorse or cause to
be endorsed thereon his name and address…”<o:p></o:p>This application mounted by the Defendants/Applicants is anchored
on the above statutory provision wherein learned counsel contend that the writ
initiated and served on the Applicants is incurably bad as far as the signature
on the writ appears above the law firm, Savers Chambers, who issued the writ.
That the substantive statutory requirement of the law does not permit a writ or
a legal process to be issued by a law firm but rather by a lawyer who has been
called to the Ghana bar and whose name appear on the roll of lawyers. Though
counsel for the Applicants concede that the name of one Korbla Hlortsi-Akakpo
appears on the writ as lawyer for the Plaintiff but it does not appear that the
place where the signature is and therefore the writ ought to be dismissed in
limini. <o:p></o:p>The
second objection which was not forcefully canvassed by counsel is the capacity
in which Plaintiff mounted the action that the action ought to be initiated by
a company but not the Plaintiff in his personal capacity.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A
proper appreciation of section 43 would not be made unless it is viewed in
consonance with Rule 4 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and
Etiquette) Rules, 1969, L. I. 613 which states that:<o:p></o:p>Rule “4(1):A lawyer shall
not practise unless he is a member of professional chambers or the pupil of
such a member.”<o:p></o:p>“(4) All professional
chambers shall be registered with the General Legal Council”<o:p></o:p>Whilst the registration of chambers where lawyers who
have been enrolled on the roll of lawyers have its place, that is a lawyer
cannot practice law unless he does so from a law firm that has validly been
registered with the General legal Council, section 43 of Act 32 makes it
mandatory for only lawyers to sign legal documents including writ but not the
law firm. See the decision of Mabel Agyemang JA in NII LANTE MILLS v MILDRED AMA WOODE (unreported) H3/563/2015 dated
20th October, 2015. And this could be said to even flow from the
decision of the decision of the Supreme Court in THE REPUBLIC V. HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIVISION) ACCRA;
EX PARTE JUSTIN PWAVRA TERIWAJAH AND ANOR (REISS &amp; CO (GHANA) LIMITED,
INTERESTED PARTY) CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/7/2013.<o:p></o:p>I
have also carefully read the sublime decision of my learned brother, Bright
Mensah J in the case of JAMES DANFUL v
EMMANUEL BOADU YEBOAH, Suit No AP 127/2015 delivered on the 17th
of July, 2015. See also EBUSUAPANYIN
KOBINA ISSAKA v EGYARE KOTOMPO, CA<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
each case as it is always said, must be viewed with the peculiarities of its
own. Just beneath the signature on the writ is the name of the law firm that
the lawyer for the Plaintiff operates as Savors Law Consultancy. The name of
the lawyer for the Plaintiff also appears but not where the signature is and
Korbla Hlortsi-Akakpo appears as the lawyer for the Plaintiff. I will look
beyond the position of the signature on the writ. In this respect it will be a
pure arid technicality a point if the court were to dwell on the fact that
because the signature does not appear to be just above the name of Korbla
Hlortse-Akapko, the writ is incompetent. There is enough evidence on the face
of the writ for one to know for all intent and purposes that the writ was
issued by a lawyer with a valid solicitor’s license. I accordingly rule that
the writ issued has not failed to comply with the requirements of Act 32 and it
is a validly issued writ.<o:p></o:p>