April 3, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This interlocutory appeal arose from a Ghanaian law firm’s suit for legal fees against its foreign client and the UK solicitors’ LLP that introduced the engagement. The High Court refused the respondent’s motion to be struck out under Order 4 Rule 5, reasoning that the respondent’s presence was relevant absent a formal contract and relying on Exhibit WAA6. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the respondent struck out. At the Supreme Court, the appellant advanced only the omnibus ground (“against the weight of evidence”) and attempted to argue legal points without leave. The Court struck out two such legal arguments, allowed two under Owusu-Domena’s exception, emphasized the standard for appellate interference in discretionary rulings, held that the trial judge misapplied Exhibit WAA6, recognized emails can form binding contracts under Act 772 and Act 798, and reaffirmed that an agent for a disclosed principal is not liable and need not be joined. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s order affirmed.
AMEGATCHER, JSC:-
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.
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 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 1st 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.
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:
“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 2nd 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 c