GH - GENERATION BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS HILSON PETROLEUM GHANA LIMITED & ANOR

By Court: The Court has heard parties this morning on an application to strike out the 2nd Defendant by way of misjoinder in this suit. Counsel for the Plaintiff in his Affidavit in Opposition raised points which appeared to be preliminary legal objection to this application. Therefore, even though Counsel for Applicant was first to make his submissions, the Court cannot ignore those issues or objections and must deal with them. The Court has perused all the documents attached to the Applicant’s motion. Counsel for Respondent raised very pertinent issues that bothers on Order 75 Rule 3(1) concerning change in representation. Counsel anchored it with Section 26 (1) & (2) of the Legal Professions Act, 1960 (Act 32) and further buttressed his position with the case of Mercy Kakpo (supra). From the records before this Court, it is indeed true that the notice of entry of appearance was filed on 6th October, 2022 on behalf of the Defendants by Law Offices of Legal Relief Trust and the Counsel who signed is one Theophilus Donkor Esq. It is also on record that on the 7th October, 2022, the notice of entry of conditional appearance was filed on behalf of the 2nd Defendant by Lawyer Gasper Nii-Aponsah Esq of Lex Premier Associates. At this point, Counsel is not denying that there are two processes filed by way of appearance by two difference lawyers. What he argues is that the 2nd Defendant has specifically appointed him as his Lawyer. In fact, the argument made by Counsel who is now purporting to represent the 2nd Defendant on the face of all the authorities is very strange. In the case of Boye Fio v. NTHC and other authorities, the Law is trite that when a statute prescribes a mode by which something ought to be done, it is that mode that has to be followed. The authorities are legion. Here, the legal professions Act, Act 32 as well as Order 75 of C. I. 47 have both prescribed the mode by which if there are conflicting processes concerning which solicitor is representing a party or if a party has changed his mind and decides to change their Solicitor, it must be followed. Counsel has not followed this procedure but he tries to bulldoze his way. The application as it stands is dismissed. Costs of GHC 5,000.00 awarded in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent against the 2nd Defendant/Applicant.

(SGD.)

H/L JANE HARRIET AKWELEY QUAYE (MRS.)

(JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)

R.A.

(SGD.)

H/L JANE HARRIET AKWELEY QUAYE (MRS.)

(JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)

R.A.

GENERATION BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS HILSON PETROLEUM GHANA LIMITED & ANOR

Areas of Law

RULING