MARANATHA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT UNION vs. HEAD OF FAMILY THE HEADS OF FAMILY [2019]DLHC8900

Date	2019-05-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: LD/0381/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8900

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.

STEPHEN OPOKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF

STEVE GRAY FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

NII AKWEI BRUCE THOMPSON FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC8900
																																						<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" >MARANATHA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT UNION<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HEAD OF FAMILY<o:p></o:p>(1ST DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>THE HEADS OF FAMILY<o:p></o:p>(2ND DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION 5), 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.: LD/0381/2019&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
9TH MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>STEPHEN OPOKU FOR THE
PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>STEVE GRAY FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT<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">

NII
AKWEI BRUCE THOMPSON FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The 2nd
Defendant/Applicant moved a motion no notice for an order to dismiss the suit
as incompetent since at the time the writ was issued counsel for Plaintiff did
not have a current solicitor’s license. Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent
opposed the application and contended that the procedure applied by the 2nd
Defendant in bringing the instant application &nbsp;is not sanctioned by any rule of law or
procedure.&nbsp; That he entered a conditional
appearance before seeking to move the court with this application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent, Applicant ought not to have entered
conditional appearance in the first place before bringing the application. The
proper procedure according to him was to have entered an unconditional
appearance before applying to bring the instant application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
application raises two issues. First is whether or not the writ is a nullity
because the lawyer who issued it did not have a current solicitor’s license at
the time he issued same, and two whether the 2nd Defendant’s lawyer
invoked the right procedure in complaining about the first issue. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I will
deal with the second issue first in this ruling. It is provided under Order 9
rules 7 and 8 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) rules CI 47 of 2004 as
follows: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Conditional
Appearance <o:p></o:p><!--[i</main>