COSSIER AND OTHERS v. AVADETSI PRACTICE NOTE
November 6, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- FRANCOIS J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
November 6, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.
I reserved this matter for a ruling on the question whether counsel could unilaterally withdraw from a suit. I was concerned about the dangers inherent in permitting counsel unfettered facility to opt out of a suit. After anxious consideration, I have, however, come to the view, albeit reluctantly, that counsel may properly withdraw from a suit in certain circumstances, provided that his [p.986] client is not thereby damnified. It is conceivable for instance, that counsel may find it difficult to compromise his duties as an officer of the court with the terms of his instructions. There are a number of other occasions or circumstances which can render a withdrawal proper and valid. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with litigation in this country and particularly with a certain category of litigants, will readily agree that lawyers are "more sinned against than sinning."
Counsel's notice of withdrawal was filed as far back as 29 April 1968. I find therefore enough time has been allowed for the affected party to secure the services of other counsel. He cannot therefore be said to be prejudiced.
It is not alleged that retainer fees have not been refunded. In any case that is a matter which can be taken up elsewhere.
I am compelled therefore to grant Mr. Doku leave to withdraw from this suit. I shall adjourn this matter for a further month to allow other counsel to be briefed.
Suit adjourned to 11 December 1968.
DECISION
Counsel’s application to withdraw from suit granted.
F.S.T.
AI Generated Summary
In a reserved ruling by FRANCOIS J., the court addressed whether counsel may unilaterally withdraw from a suit. The judge expressed concern about the dangers of allowing unfettered withdrawals but, after anxious consideration, concluded that counsel may properly withdraw in certain circumstances so long as the client is not damnified. The application, filed by counsel Mr. Doku on 29 April 1968, had provided ample time for the affected party to secure new representation, and the court found no prejudice. Issues regarding refund of retainer fees were noted as collateral and could be taken up elsewhere. Recognizing that counsel’s duties as officers of the court may conflict with instructions, and that lawyers are sometimes “more sinned against than sinning,” the court granted leave to withdraw and adjourned the matter for a month to enable briefing of other counsel, fixing a new date of 11 December 1968.