SETH KWAME AWUKU ESQ VS THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL & 1 ORS

The Applicant filed this application under order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.47) praying for an

“(a) An Order of Certiorari directed to the General Legal Council for the purpose of quashing its ruling dated 15th June, 2015

(b) An order of mandamus directed to the General Legal Council to restore his name to the roll of lawyers and

(c) A declaration that Section 16 A of the Legal Profession Act 1960, (Act 32) is inconsistent and incompatible with the provisions of

the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992 which is the Supreme Law of Ghana”.

The facts of the Applicant’s case were that his name was struck out from the roll of lawyers by the Law Society of Upper Canada which he was a member. He was admitted to the Ontario Bar to practice law in Ontario Bar to practice law in Ontario, Canada in 1999. By virtue of being a lawyer in Canada, the applicant had the opportunity to do Post Call Law Course in Ghana after which he was admitted to Ghana Bar on 21st April, 2006. It came to the attention of the General Legal Council that at the time he applied to be admitted into the Ghana Bar in 2004 and at the time of his enrolment in 2006, he was not of good character as he had misappropriated his client’s money in April, 2004. The General Legal Council acting under Section 16 A of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) struck off the name of the applicant from the roll of lawyers.

The Applicant has filed an applicant seeking for three reliefs, that is certiorari to quash the decision of the General Legal Council, Mandamus to compel the General Legal Council to restore his name to the roll of lawyers and an order for a declaration that Section 16A of the Legal Profession Act 1960, (Act 32) is inconsistent and incompatible with article 1 of the Constitution of Ghana,

1992. The first two reliefs would depend on the outcome of the interpretation to be given to relief (c) on the motion paper.

There are two applications to be determined on the suit. The 2nd Respondent has filed a motion to declare that she is not a proper and necessary party to the suit. The 1st Respondent also is praying for the suit to be dismissed as constituting an abuse of the process of the court. The Applicant has resisted both applications and is praying for the dismissal of both applications.

I will address the 1st Respondent’s application which is seeking to dismiss the suit as constituting an abuse of the process of the court. The important issue to det