KUJO ELAS MCDAVE v. GREATER PLAN COMPANY LIMITED & GODFRED ANNANG AKRONG
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Samuel K. A. Asiedu
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, a lawyer, contended he was owed professional fees by the 1st defendant after being relieved of his duties without full payment. The total claims included fees for services rendered and the monetary value of land assigned as legal fees but not transferred. The defendants insisted all due payments were completed. Both parties presented evidence and witnesses during the trial. Despite presenting multiple documents and witness testimonies, the plaintiff failed to sufficiently prove the claims due to lack of evidence showing receipt of proceeds from land sales and issues with the purported land assignment. The court dismissed all claims, reinforcing the necessity for clear, credible evidence and valid legal practice licences when seeking fee recovery.
JUDGMENT
By a writ of civil summons dated the 7th day of May, 2014 the plaintiff claims from the defendants:
(a) An Order compelling the 1st Defendant to pay the total sum of GH¢582,000.00 and US$17,400 being the sums owed the Plaintiff as Professional Fees as at 9th January, 2013.
(b) Interest on the said sum above at the prevailing bank rate from the 10th January, 2013 until date of final payment.
(c) An order compelling both the 1st and 2nd Defendants either jointly or severally to pay the sum of GH¢2,180,000.00 being the monetary value of the landed property assigned to the Plaintiff as legal fees and guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant.
(d) Interest on the said sum (c) above at the prevailing bank rate from the 10th January, 2013 until date of final payment.
(e) Cost.
The defendants entered an appearance to the writ and then filed their statement of defence. After failure of the pre-trial settlement, the case was set down for trial at which the plaintiff gave evidence and then called one witness to close his case. The defendants’ representative, Manfred Akrong, gave evidence on behalf of the defendants and then called one witness before announcing the closure of the case for the defendants.
The case of the plaintiff is that he was engaged by the 1st defendant to act as the lawyer for the 1st defendant upon terms set out in the letter of appointment which the plaintiff tendered in evidence as exhibit ‘A’. The plaintiff says that after working for a while for the 1st defendant, the defendants relieved him of his duties when he has not been fully paid for the services rendered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has therefore sued the defendants to recover the unpaid balance of the fees which the defendants owe. The defendants have denied owing the plaintiff. According to the defendants the plaintiff had been paid for the services which he rendered to the defendants.
From the pleadings filed by the parties, it is not in dispute that by exhibit ‘A’ the 1st defendant engaged the services of the plaintiff as the lawyer for the 1st defendant company. Indeed, the pleadings reveal that the plaintiff was to act as the solicitor of the 1st defendant company in “all legal matters including litigation, legal representation in meetings and negotiations and also in matters relating to the acquisition of land and other matters …”
Again from the pleadings the court finds that sometime around the 12th day of December, 2012, the 2nd defendant informed the plaintiff th