FRANK OTAH ENYEREM v. LOGISTICS INC. LIMITED & ORS
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)
- DOTSE JSC
- ANIN YEBOAH JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC
- GBADEGBE JSC
- AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC
- AKAMBA JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court reviewed the issue of whether the Attorney-General could represent the Registrar of the High Court, Tema (6th Defendant) against claims by the plaintiff. Given Articles 88 and 127 of the 1992 Constitution and relevant case law, the Supreme Court unanimously held that such representation does not undermine judicial independence or lead to conflicts of interest. Guidelines for determining Attorney-General representation were established, emphasizing independence, conflict of interest, and case-by-case assessment.
DOTSE JSC
On the 5th day of December 2016 this court by a unanimous decision dismissed the referral action necessitated by the preliminary legal objection filed and argued by learned counsel for the 3rd to 5th Defendants against the legal representation of the 6th Defendants by the Attorney-General.
Following that dismissal, this court directed as follows:-
“Accordingly the Judge before whom the suit was pending in the High Court, Tema, or any other Judge presiding over the Court in which the suit is pending is to continue the suit with the Attorney-General representing the 6th Defendant in terms of the orders and judgment of this Court. The full and reasoned judgment of this court are to be filed later.
We now proceed to give the reasons for our said decision.
INTRODUCTION
By an order of His Lordship Adjei-Frimpong J.,presiding over the High Court, Tema the following issues formulated by him were referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation:
Whether on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 124 (1); 127 (1) and (2) and 161 of the 1992 Constitution, the Attorney General who is a Minister of State under Article 88 (1) of the Constitution can properly represent the 6th Defendant who is a judicial officer in legal suit.
Whether, the representation of the 6th Defendant by the Attorney-General who is a Minister of State under Article 88 (1) of the 1992 Constitution is in contravention of and inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Article 125 (1), 127 (1) and (2), and 161 of the said Constitution.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of this case admit of no controversy whatsoever. They are as follows:-
The plaintiff, formerly an engineer on board the vessel M/V MIDEN ANIE brought a suit against the said vessel together with her owners and operators for unpaid salaries before the High Court Tema. In the said suit titled Frank Otah Enyerem v Miden Systems & 3 Ors, the plaintiff obtained judgment in the total sum of Three Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred US Dollars ($328, 500.00) in June 2013.
Following the said judgment the plaintiff caused to be attached by a writ of fifa the property of the defendants therein. The property so attached has been described as “Dive Spread Equipment” in four (4) separate 20 footer containers ("the property"). In the instant suit, the plaintiff alleges that at all material times the property was in the custody of the 3rd defendants herein, (PSC, Tema Ship yard)
The plaintiff alleges that, following t