ATUGUBA & ASSOCIATES vs. SCIPION CAPITAL (UK) LTD AND HOLMAN FENWICK WILLIAN LLP [2019]DLSC6300

Date	2019-04-03
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/04/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC6300

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

BENIN JSC

PWAMANG JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

KOTEY JSC

HAROLD ATUGUBA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

GOLDA DENYO FOR THE 2 ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.

[2019]DLSC6300
																																						<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" >ATUGUBA
&amp; ASSOCIATES <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)
<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SCIPION
CAPITAL (UK) LTD AND HOLMAN FENWICK WILLIAN LLP<o:p></o:p>(1ST &amp; 2 ND
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[SUPREME COURT, 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/04/2019 &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;DATE: 3RD APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING),
BENIN JSC, PWAMANG JSC, AMEGATCHER JSC, KOTEY JSC<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AMEGATCHER,
JSC:- <o:p></o:p>This
appeal has travelled all the way to the highest court of the land when the
substantive matter has been comatose for the past two years at the trial court
adding to the backlog of cases awaiting trial. What is before us, therefore, is
an interlocutory appeal from a ruling of the High Court to the Court of Appeal
and then to this court.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of this appeal do not admit of any controversy. The business operations
of the respondent and the 1st defendant are in the United Kingdom. The
appellant is a 2 law firm in Ghana registered by the General Legal Council
offering legal services to the public. Sometime in 2014, the respondent, also a
limited liability partnership registered in the United Kingdom and offering
legal services, engaged the services of the appellant to act for the 1st
defendant in civil suits brought against it in the High Court in Ghana. After
several correspondence, the appellant agreed to offer the legal services to the
1st defendant at agreed hourly rates. The appellant represented the 1 st
defendant in the courts in Ghana, but a dispute arose between the appellant and
the 1st defendant regarding the invoices sent by the appellant for payment of
legal fees. When this could not be resolved, the appellant commenced legal
action on 6th October 2016 at the High Court, Accra against the 1st defendant
and the respondent for the cost of legal services rendered, interest, general
damages for breach of contract and costs.<o:p></o:p>After
service of the writ and statement of claim, the 1st defendant and respondent
entered appearance and filed a joint statement of defence through their solicitors
in Ghana. The respondent on 6th December 2016 applied to the High Court by
motion to strike it out from the suit under Order 4 Rule 5 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). The parties argued the application
before the High Court and in a short ruling delivered on 12th January 2017 the
High Court presided over by Novisi Aryene, J ruled as follows:<o:p></o:p>“BY COURT: I have heard both counsel
and read Order 4 rule 5(2). I also note that Plaintiff’s claim is for payment
of Legal fees. It is not in dispute that Plaintiff rendered Legal services to
the 1st Defendant introduced by 2 nd Defendant. It is my view that in the
absence of a formal contract, and having read Exhibit WAA6, the presence of the
2nd Defendant is relevant for the final and complete determination of the
matters in dispute. The Application is refused. No award as to costs.”<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with the ruling of Novisi Aryene, J, the respondent appealed to the Court of
Appeal. In its ruling dated 7th December, 2017 the Court of Appeal allowed the
respondent’s appeal and ordered that the respondent be struck out from the suit
as a party. It is from the ruling of the Court of Appeal that the present
interlocutory appeal has been lodged at this Court.<o:p></o:p>One
ground of appeal was filed in the Notice of Appeal, i.e., the judgment is
against the weight of evidence. It is instructive to note also that in the appeal
to the Court of Appeal, the same omnibus ground of appeal was filed except that
a second ground, to wit, that the High Court judge erred in ruling that the
presence of the respondent was relevant for the final determination of the
matter in dispute, was added.<o:p></o:p>It
has long been the practice among some legal practitioners to shirk the
responsibility imposed on them to formulate specific grounds of appeal stating
where trial judges erred for the consideration of the appellate court. The
omnibus ground has been a hideout ground. The responsibility in even minor
appeals is shifted to the appellate judges to comb through the records of
appeal, review the evidence and identify the specific areas the trial judge
erred before coming out with the court’s opinion on the merits or otherwise of
the appeal. The situation is worrying where no viva voce evidence is proffered
and a judge is called upon to exercise j</main>