2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Anin-Yeboah JSC, exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 132 to review orders made by the High Court (Fast Track Division) in litigation initiated by Reiss & Company (Ghana) Limited against Henry Nuertey Korboe, Hekoma Ghana Limited, Shelash Ghana Limited, and Shirley Korboe. After Korboe and Hekoma retained a lawyer (the first applicant), an objection was raised that the lawyer had failed to disclose his Solicitor’s Licence Number and lacked a valid practising licence for 2013, contravening section 8(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) and Rule 4(4) of LI 613. The High Court enforced these provisions, dismissed the motion to vary, and denied the lawyer audience. The applicants contended that constitutional questions about the Second Schedule and retroactivity under Article 107(b), and the licence’s validity into November 2013, warranted referral under Article 130. The Supreme Court held section 8 is unambiguous and non-retroactive, no constitutional interpretation was required, and refusal of audience was lawful, dismissing the application.
ANIN-YEBOAH, JSC:
This application which seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution raises issues the determination of which will affect all legal practitioners in Ghana. To appreciate the basis of this ruling, the facts which appear not to be controverted are as follows:
Reiss and Company (Ghana) Limited, a corporate body commenced an action at the High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra, intituled as: SUIT № AC 54/2009; REISS & COMPANY (GHANA) LIMITED v HENRY NORTEY KORBOE, (2) HEKOMA GHANA LIMITED, (3) SHELASH GHANA LIMITED and SHIRLEY KORBOE (NEE LAMPTEY). The claim was for a liquidated sum of GH¢920,000.00 and other ancillary reliefs not very necessary to recite in this delivery. Upon service of the writ and the accompanying statement of claim, HENRY NUERTEY KORBOE and HEKOMA GHANA LIMITED, engaged the first applicant herein (who was at the time material a practising lawyer) to represent them in the suit. In the affidavit in support of this application, HENRY NUERTEY KORBOE the deponent, swore that after the first applicant had taken over the conduct of the case, he detected that orders made in the case prior to his engagement as a lawyer, were palpably irregular. As a lawyer, the first applicant filed a motion to vary or vacate the alleged irregular orders already made at the trial court. This, as usual was seriously opposed by the interested party by filing a notice of preliminary objection and an affidavit. The basis of the objection which was apparent in the affidavit was that, the first applicant herein, on filing the motion did not disclose his Solicitor’s Licence Number for the year 2013 on the motion paper. It was also raised as an objection that the first applicant not having taken any practising Licence for 2013 was incompetent to sign a motion and that same contravenes section 8(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32). The first applicant admitted that a similar objection was raised in an earlier suit that he had no practicing license for 2013 and further, his chambers had not been registered with the General Legal Council as enjoined by LI 613 and Act 32.
The learned judge proceeded to enforce the law and therefore held that there was clear breach of section 8 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32 and Rule 4(4) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules 1969 (LI 613) and dismissed the application to vacate or vary the interlocutory injunction gra