Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 28, 2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
The Court heard counsel for Defendant/Applicant on his motion to withdraw representation for Defendant, as stated in the motion paper and the affidavit in support.
He stated Counsel is authority has expired and the G. F. A. normalization committee has not instructed Counsel to represent G. F. A. Secondly, he stated filing fees and fees for work done has not been paid, hence the application.
REPLY: LEGAL SUBMISSION
She submitted C. I. 47 provides in ORDER 75 Rule 6(1) that it is lawyer on record that must file the motion to withdraw representation.
Abu Juan is the person who did the deposition.
Presently, it is not clear whether it is Thaddaeus Sorry or Abu Juan or which lawyer is withdrawing the representation it is not clearly stated.
In answer, Counsel for Applicant states that Thaddaeus Sorry is a member of the FIRM of lawyers.
BY COURT: RULING
1. The objection raised is not fatal to the application, or the request to withdraw representation.
The issues raised necessitating the application to withdraw are really fundamental.
Whether it be the law FIRM or a particular lawyer, there must be authorization and instruction to act, least, the lawyer or the firm will be in breach of ORDER 1 RULE 4 of C. I. 47, the application is granted.
Leave to withdraw representation is granted.
2. Case is adjourned sine die.
(SGD. ) H/L NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT‘MCG’.
AI Generated Summary
Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant moved the High Court for leave to withdraw representation for the Defendant in ongoing proceedings. He explained that his authority to act had expired, that the Ghana Football Association (G.F.A.) normalization committee had not instructed him to continue representing the G.F.A., and that filing and professional fees for work performed had not been paid. Opposing counsel argued, with reference to C.I. 47 Order 75 Rule 6(1), that only the lawyer on record may file a motion to withdraw, and pointed to uncertainty over whether Thaddaeus Sorry or Abu Juan was the lawyer seeking to withdraw. The court held that the objection was not fatal, found the reasons necessitating withdrawal fundamental, emphasized that acting without client authorization or instruction breaches Order 1 Rule 4 of C.I. 47, granted the application and leave to withdraw representation, and adjourned the case sine die.