KENNETH KWABENA AGYEI KURANCHIE vs. GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL [2019]DLHC7549

Date	2019-07-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/547/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7549

JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

EDEM NUHOHO HOLDING THE BRIEF OF KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE RESPONDENT – PRESENT

[2019]DLHC7549
																																						<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" >KENNETH
KWABENA AGYEI KURANCHIE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GENERAL
LEGAL COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
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.
GJ/547/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
25TH JULY 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

EDEM NUHOHO HOLDING THE BRIEF OF KIZITO
BEYUO FOR THE RESPONDENT – PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JEROME
NOBLE-NKRUMAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">NOTICE OF MOTION<o:p></o:p>

</div>APPLICATION FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Applicant on the 3/7/19 filed the present
application seeking following reliefs <o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order of prohibition directed at the Respondents to withdraw the advertisement
placed on page 4 of the Daily Graphic of June 4, 2019 and to make the contents
of the said advertisement consistent with articles 23 and 296 (a) and (b) [of
the 1992 constitution] and the Legal Profession(Professional and Post-Call Law
Course) Regulations, 2018( L.I.2355)<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order of prohibition directed at the Respondent to withdraw the advertisement
placed at page 30 of the Daily Graphic of June 4, 2019, and make the contents
of the said advertisement consistent with articles 17 of 1992 Constitution <o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order of prohibition directed at the Respondent to withdraw the advertisement
placed at page 30 of the Daily Graphic of June 4, 2019, and make the contents
of the said advertisement consistent with article 15 of the 1992 Constitution<o:p></o:p>In an affidavit in support the Applicant
deposes to the fact that on the said date in June 2019 the Respondent caused to
be published in the Daily Graphic at page 30 the advertisement&nbsp; in issue titled ‘Entrance Examination For Admission To the Professional Law Course Of
The Ghana School Of Law In October 2019’ [copy attached as Exhibit 1]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Applicant says upon a closer study of the
said advertisement he found that it contained matters that were in issue
between him and the Respondent in a suit filed in the Supreme Court. He
attaches a copy of his Writ invoking the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
as exhibit 2 <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;A further reading, the Applicant says
demonstrated to him that the Respondent per the said advertisement intended to
act ultra vires powers granted it by law, i. e. Regulations 1 to 8 of the Legal
Profession (Professional and Post-Call Law Course) Regulations, 2018 L.I 2355
and not only that, the advertisement went against the grain of notable
decisions of the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;He goes on further that the advertisement and
its import sought to restrict some people who have already acquired Bachelor of
Laws certificates from progressing to undertake the professional law course.<o:p></o:p>Again in same advertisement and at
section C thereof the Respondent intends to put the candidates through an
examination to be held on Friday July 26 2019 and would comprise only two
essays derived from 10 major law courses, which situation the Applicant finds
cruel and contrary to Article 15 of the 1992 Constitution and that in the said
advert the Respondent&nbsp; purports to
determine the number of candidates&nbsp; to be
admitted&nbsp; to the Professional Law course,
this the Applicant finds discriminatory and contrary to Article 17 of the 1992
Constitution.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Further to the above the requirement for the
production of Police Clearance Certificate is not a requirement in the Legal
Profession (Professional &nbsp;and Post-Call
Law Course) Regulations, 2018 L.I 2355 and therefore contrary to Articles 23
and 296 (a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution.<o:p></o:p>In opposing this application the Respondent
deposed that where a person has alleged that any act or omission of any person
or body is inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of the 1992
Constitution, and that person wants to sue, he must sue in the Supreme Court. The
situation being so for the Applicant, the Respondent says this court has no jurisdiction
to entertain the instant app</main>