Armah and others vAmugi II and others
June 3, 1993
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ESSIEM,AMUAH,FORSTER JJA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
June 3, 1993
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
ESSIEM JA. This is an application by the applicants herein seeking an order to stay all proceedings in the court below in this suit pending the hearing and final determination by this court, of the appeal herein filed on 8 February 1993 from the ruling of the court below delivered on 26 January 1993. The application was accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by Nii Armah alias Todjo in which he averred that upon an objection taken by the respondents to Mr Joe Reindorf appearing for the applicants, the High Court had upheld the objection. The objection was based on an allegation that counsel for the applicants in the court below, Mr Joe Reindorf, had acted for the whole family in a previous matter and that he should not be permitted by the court to appear for a faction of his former clients against the other faction in the instant case before the High Court concerning the same subject matter. The objection was upheld by the court below thus:
“When his [Joe Reindorf’s] attention was drawn to paragraph 2 of exhibit E written by him, he said in 1973 he appeared for a bigger family not belonging to Korle We, who are claiming part of the land. I would think, going by the above, that it is proper and advisable that Mr Reindorf withdraws his representation.”
There is an appeal now pending before this court against that ruling. The purpose of this application is therefore to stay the proceedings before the High Court until the appeal is heard by this court and hopefully to enable Mr Joe Reindorf to appear for the applicants. The application was brought under the Court of Appeal Rules 1962 (LI 218) rule 27 as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules 1975 (LI 1002). I should mention that the court below dismissed an oral application for stay pending appeal.
I have considered the submission of counsel and I am satisfied that the appeal now pending before this court is not frivolous. However I have come to the conclusion that in view of the Supreme Court decision in Takyi v Ghassoub (Ghana) Ltd [1987-88] 2 GLR 452, this court has no jurisdiction to grant the application to stay proceedings before the High Court pending the hearing and determination of the appeal by Mr Joe Reindorf’s client.
In Takyi v Ghassoub this court granted an application for stay of proceedings in the High Court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that the ruling of the Court of Appeal was given without jurisdiction and was therefore null and voi
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal addressed an interlocutory application by members of the Korle We family seeking to stay all High Court proceedings pending their appeal from a ruling that barred their chosen lawyer, Mr Joe Reindorf, from appearing because he had previously represented the whole family on the same Kwabenya land. Essiem JA found the pending appeal was not frivolous but, bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in Takyi v Ghassoub, held the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to order a stay of High Court proceedings in the circumstances. Essiem JA additionally noted the respondents’ privilege-based objection may be reasonable given Reindorf’s prior joint representation, and suggested the applicants instruct other counsel. Forster JA concurred in the dismissal for want of jurisdiction, but explained that joint-client communications are not privileged between the clients and considered the privilege claim illusory. The application was dismissed.