INTRODUCTION 1. This case is a Solicitor-Client relationship contract case for recovery of fees and is essentially governed by the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct & Etiquette)Rules.
The Plaintiff a firm of legal Practitioners and Consultants who filed this suit against the Defendant, the Central Bank of Ghana, the Defendant herein sets out its claim for loss of fees/commission for work done.
According to the Plaintiff, it was engaged by the Defendant to find for it a land for construction of a new head office.
The period of the Plaintiff’s alleged relationship with the Defendant spans between 2014 and 2021 when the last correspondence was sent to the Defendant.
The Legal Profession Etiquette Rules that have been at play have been L. I. 613 of 1969 and L. I. 2423 of 2020. It claims that it offered a number of sites to the Defendant including the SIC Ridge property which the Defendant has since acquired but refused to pay the Plaintiff its fees and by its amended Writ of Summons claimed the following reliefs: -a) An order for the payment of an amount of US$1, 244, 000 for the loss of commission.
b) Interest on the amount stated in (a) at commercial bank rate with effect from January, 2019 till date of final.
c) Cost. d) Any other relief.
In the Alternative a) Special Damages of US$1, 244, 000 for the loss of commission/fees in respect of the land purchase transaction on the disputed land at Ridge, Accra.
b) Interest on the amount determined in (a) above at commercial bank rate with effect from January, 2019 till date of final payment.
c) Cost. d) Any other relief.
2. The Defendant in its defence denied owing the Plaintiff as by the Defendants contention it did not directly engage Plaintiff for the acquisition of the Ridge Property which is under construction for its new office.
According to the Defendant the said property was acquired through compulsory acquisition by the State and per the advice of Lands Commission the purchase price was paid into an escrow account pending the resolution of other matters.
3. Before setting out the case of the respective parties, I hasten to state that the reliefs sought by the law firm for providing legal service cannot be commission but fees and the claim must be for payment of fees for work done for which a bill has been raised and unpaid but, not for loss of fees as if the Defendant had prevented the Plaintiff from getting a business for which reason it lost fees.
It is a matter so elementary in leg
