GAISE ZWENNES HUGHES & CO. v. LODERS CROCKLAAN B. V.

J U D G M E N T

DR. DATE-BAH JSC:

I have had the privilege of reading before-hand the lucid and authoritative judgment about to be read by my brother Gbadegbe JSC and I agree with him. The interpretation put on section 30(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) by the Court of Appeal in Ayarna & Anor V Agyemang & Ors [1976] 1 GLR 306 and by the Supreme Court more recently in Narter v Gati [2010] SCGLR 745 makes it inevitable for us to dismiss this action.

(SGD) DR. S. K. DATE-BAH

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

GBADEGBE JSC:

On or about 14 March 2006, the defendant instructed the plaintiff, a firm of legal practitioners, regarding a contract that they had previously entered into with a company known as International Business Group, Ghana Ltd and its managing director. It appears from the pleadings in this case that the contract was one of purchase of shea-nuts for which the defendant had made payment but did not receive supplies due to it.

The instructions from the defendant to the plaintiff provided for differential schemes of payment of professional fees in the event of a settlement or a full scale trial of the dispute. Based upon the agreement reached between the parties herein, the plaintiff issued a writ to demand payment of the outstanding amounts owed to the client and in the course of the pendency of the action reached an agreement with the debtors and executed terms of settlement dated 20 December 2006. The said terms of settlement were consequently duly entered as a judgment of the court in the matter.

Following the conclusion of the case, the plaintiff basing himself on the retainer agreement took out a writ of civil summons to claim from its client (the defendant herein) professional fees owing to it following the recovery of judgment in the action that it had concluded against International Business Group and the managing director. In paragraph 11 of the statement of claim filed on its behalf, it was averred as follows:

“As a consequence of the above and in line with their Retainer Agreement, Plaintiff requisitioned for payment of US$44,50, being 1.25% of the settlement sum recovered and received by Defendants of US$3,564,000.00 as a result of professional services rendered by the Plaintiffs.”

The action proceeded to a trial that was determined against the plaintiff by the High Court. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was also determined against the plaintiff and as a result the proceedings herein were initiated before us by wa