OSEI KWAKU v. CLETUS BARRO & ANOTHER

AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC:

The designation of the parties at the trial court will be maintained in this judgment.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the high court dated 2nd November 2012 by which his action was dismissed and costs of 5,000 cedis awarded against him.

His claim was for professional fees of 19,471.89 euros with interest for services he rendered when he successfully claimed compensation for the death of the defendant’s nephew in Spain. He also sought an order compelling the defendant to deposit the said compensation into Court for its distribution to the beneficiaries in accordance with law.

The following are his grounds of appeal

a. The judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial

b. The court erred when it held that the plaintiff failed to call a material witness Fred Awuah the notary public

c. The court erred when it held that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant that plaintiff should pursue a claim for compensation in Spain in respect of the death of Fusseini Issah in Spain

d. The court erred when it held that exhibits “2k, c and d” were not prepared by the plaintiff but Fred Awuah, who prepared and notorised them

e. Further grounds may be filed upon receipt of the Record of Appeal

No further grounds were filed.

Plaintiff seeks from this court an order setting aside the judgment in question and in its stead judgment entered for him.

The background to this case is that the defendant’s nephew was killed in an accident in Spain. He was put in touch with the plaintiff for some work to be done regarding a claim for compensation due the deceased’s family. What is the bone of contention between the parties is the scope of work done. While plaintiff claims he was responsible for procuring the compensation paid, the defendant says plaintiff’s instructions were limited to preparing some documents to be used to claim the said compensation and that these documents were not even used because they were not properly prepared.

Counsel for the defendant states in his written submissions that counsel for the plaintiff did not make submissions on grounds (b) and (c) and so these should be deemed abandoned. Page 12 of the said submissions shows that ground (b) was argued even if it was not so titled and in dealing with the omnibus ground, the issue of whether or not there was an agreement between the parties has to be dealt with.

Indeed all the grounds of appeal will be discus