JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.
The plaintiffs, the Northern Engineering Co., Ltd. claim against the defendant, Mr. C. K. A. Djokotoe, the sum of ¢5,306.80 being the amount which the defendant is alleged to have caused to be paid to one Cletus K. Amoah from the plaintiffs' funds without the lawful authority of the plaintiffs. The writ of summons was specially endorsed and so proceeding under the provisions of Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), the plaintiffs have moved the court for liberty to enter judgment against the defendant for the claim so endorsed on the said writ of summons.
On the hearing of the application, counsel for the defendant has raised a preliminary objection to the locus standi of Mr. A. A. Luguterah, the counsel for the plaintiffs in these proceedings, to act as solicitor or counsel for the said plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as N.E.C. where appropriate). He has pointed out that Mr. A. A. Luguterah is the acting managing director of the N.E.C. He has also drawn attention to a fact conceded by Mr. A. A. Luguterah that he, Mr. Luguterah, is a practising lawyer. On the basis of these facts he argues that by the provisions of rule 1 (2) (a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (L.I. 613), Mr. Luguterah is not entitled to act as solicitor or counsel in this case.
The relevant provisions of the rules are:
"1. (1) A lawyer in practice is—
(a) a lawyer who is entitled to practise and who holds himself out as ready to do so, or is employed in a whole-time occupation where he performs legal duties; or
(b) a lawyer whose regular occupation is that of editor or reporter of any series of Law Reports entirely written and edited by lawyers for use by the legal profession.
(2) A practising lawyer shall not—
(a) be a managing director or executive chairman in any company or an active partner in any business.
(b) carry on any other profession or business which conflicts or involves a serious risk of conflict with his duties as a practising lawyer;
Provided that the General Legal Council may for the avoidance of doubt give a ruling on an application made to it in writing in any particular case as whether a profession or business conflicts or involves a serious risk of conflict with the duties of a person as a practising lawyer."
[p.335]
I must say at this stage that I find Mr. Mensa-Etsi's argument very simple and straightforward having regard to the language of rule 1 (2) (a
