Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 17, 2012
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
DENNIS ADJEI, J. A
The plaintiffs per their writ of summons were seeking from the defendants the following reliefs: “i. A declaration that there is no legally constituted Association or body known as Association of VR Flooded Lands compensation Claimants.
i. A declaration that defendants have no authority, right, power or capacity to deduct or cause any monies due the Pai Katanga compensation claim to be deducted.
ii. An order for accounts against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants for all monies received in the name of the 1st defendant.
iii. An order for the refund of all monies deducted from the Pai Traditional Area claims of the compensation b the 1st defendant.
iv. An order of perpetual junction restraining the defendants, by themselves, their agents, assigns, privies whomsoever from making decisions of any monies due the Pai Traditional Area”.
On 1st December, 2011. The 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th and 12th.
Defendants entered conditional appearance to the plaintiffs’ writ of summons.
Copies of the conditional appearance were to be served on the plaintiffs or their lawyers as well as the 1st, 4th, 6th, 9th and 10th defendants or their lawyer Hon. K. Owusu Yeboah. However, Hon. K. Owusu Yeboah who was described as lawyer for the 1st, 4th, 6th, 9th and 10th defendants entered conditional appearance for his clients on 6th December, 2011. What amazes me is the service of the conditional appearance filed by the lawyer for the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th and 12nd defendants meant to be served on Hon.
Owusu Yeboah as lawyer for the 1st, 4th, 6th, 9th and 10th defendants when he had not filed any process in the matter.
Owusu Yeboah entered conditional appearance for his clients five days after the filling of the conditional appearance by the lawyer for 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th and 12 defendants . On 20th December, 2011 the lawyer for 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th and 12th defendants filed a motion on notice to strike out the plaintiff’s writ of summons for being defective.
Defendants applicant’s lawyer filed the motion to strike out the plaintiff’s action as incompetent five(5) days after the conditional appearance had become regular or normal appearance . The grounds of the applicants application are that: “1. The writ of summons was issued by an entity known as a legal link which is not a lawyer and therefore lacked capacity to institute an action as a lawyer on behalf of the Plaintiffs and(2) It was filed contrary to section 2, 3 and 8 of the Legal profession
AI Generated Summary
This judgment by Justice Dennis D. Adjei addresses a motion to strike out a writ of summons in litigation arising from compensation claims relating to the Pai Traditional Area and a purported Association of VR Flooded Lands compensation Claimants. Multiple defendants entered conditional appearances, and on 20 December 2011 counsel for several defendants sought to strike the writ, contending it was issued by “Legal Link,” an entity that was not a lawyer, contrary to the Legal Profession Act and the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. Plaintiffs argued the motion was out of time under Order 9 rule 8 and that the issuing entity was a firm of lawyers. The court analyzed Orders 4, 9, 11, and 75 of C.I. 47 and section 2 of Act 32, holding that only a named individual lawyer or the party can issue a writ; law firms are not “lawyers.” Relying on MacFoy and Mosi v. Bagyina, the court concluded the writ was a nullity and set it aside as void despite procedural lapses.