AYARNA AND ANOTHER v. AGYEMANG AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.

Apaloo J. delivered the judgment of the court. The respondents (hereafter called the plaintiffs) are all qualified lawyers and were enrolled under the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32), to practise their profession. The appellants, i.e. the defendants, are father and son and both seemed to be in business of some sort in or about 1973. Some time that year, the first defendant was charged with subversion and pending trial, was kept in custody. The offence was one which carried the death penalty. As was only to be expected, he was desirous of being defended by a lawyer of his own choice.

As he was himself in custody, he seems to have asked his wife to brief counsel on his behalf. The first plaintiff was accordingly instructed on behalf of the first defendant. It is only natural that there should be some discussion about professional fees but it is clear no sum was agreed between Mrs. Ayarna and the first plaintiff. At Mrs. Ayarna's request, the first plaintiff interviewed the first defendant in custody and the latter was agreeable that the first plaintiff should represent him. He expressed completed confidence in him. Although they are now in serious disagreement on matters to be presently mentioned, the evidence suggests that the first plaintiff's professional performance at the trial met with the first defendant's complete satisfaction.

[p.309]

It is obvious that a charge of this gravity required the services of more than one lawyer and it seems clear that the second plaintiff was also instructed by the first defendant's wife to join in the defence. He agreed and the documents, exhibited in evidence, show that he was also formally approved by the first defendant. Although two other lawyers joined in the defence of the first defendant, both the first and second plaintiffs seemed to have had the conduct of the case. Both are lawyers of recognised standing and experience. As we said, two other lawyers were announced as appearing for the first defendant.

The latter said they were not briefed by him and were not instructed on his behalf by his wife. It was suggested that the third plaintiff came in to assist and did so merely on grounds of friendship. The fourth plaintiff is the younger brother of the first plaintiff and shared his chambers. It was suggested on behalf of the defendants that he entered into the team at the behest of his brother. The first defendant denied that he contracted with them and was legally liable to pay th