JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.
The respondent was charged with the offence of unlawful assumption of the title of solicitor contrary to section 9 (2) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960.1 The facts that provided the grounds on which the charge was laid are that on or about 10 February 1965 the respondent not being enrolled under the Legal Profession Act, 1960, did take or use the title of solicitor. The respondent is the sole proprietor of a business designated General Insurance Claims Agency which has been registered under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1962.2 He wrote a letter the heading of which bore words which appeared to indicate that the letter came from a firm of legal practitioners addressing the same to the claims manager, Royal Exchange Assurance, Accra. The offending title reads as follows:
"General Insurance Claims and Brokers Agency Solicitors, Commissioners for Oaths (Privy Council Agents)."
The said letter was tendered by the prosecution as exhibit F. The letter was signed by the respondent "for General Insurance Claims and Brokers Agency" in his capacity as "Claims Manager." The prosecution called five witnesses. At the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Amuah-Sekyi, learned defence counsel, made a submission of no case.
The learned trial circuit judge, his honour Judge Okai upheld the submission and discharged and acquitted the respondent. The appeal herein was filed against the ruling of the learned trial circuit judge. Mr. Kaleo-Bioh, learned state attorney, assailed the said ruling on the ground that it is bad in law. In his said ruling the learned circuit judge after making the finding, said among other things that "I am satisfied it is the agency that has taken or used the title 'solicitors'," and concluded that the assumption of title was not made by the respondent who is the owner of the business. Upon that basis he discharged the respondent and acquitted him.
In support of his ground of appeal, namely, that the ruling is wrong in law, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the respondent is the sole proprietor of the business, then whatever the agency did was in law and in fact done by the proprietor. The agency, according to learned state attorney, had no separate personality independent of the personality of the proprietor. It was this misconception on the part of the learned circuit judge on the question of legal personality, submitted learned state attorney which led to the wrong conclusion
