The Republic v. High Court (Fast Track Div.) Accra Ex Parte: Justin Pwavra Teriwajah And Henry Nuertey Korboe Civil Appeal No. J5/7/2013

Material Facts:

Reiss and Company (Ghana) Limited commenced an action against Henry Nuertey Korboe and some other persons to recover a sum of money. Henry Nuertey Korboe engaged the first applicant as his lawyer. After the first applicant took over the conduct of the case, he is alleged to have detected that orders made in the case prior to his engagement as a lawyer were irregular. The first applicant then applied to the court to vacate the irregular orders.

The application was objected to by Reiss and Company (Ghana) Limited on the ground that the first applicant, in filing the motion to vacate the irregular orders, did not disclose his solicitor’s license number for the year 2013 on the motion paper. It was also raised as an objection that the first applicant, not having taken any practicing license for 2013, was incompetent to sign a motion, and that same contravenes Section 8(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32).

The trial judge dismissed the motion and further held that the first applicant, being without a solicitor’s licence number contrary to Section 8 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) , was incompetent to represent the second applicant as his client.

The applicants invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the ground that the first applicant had challenged the constitutionality of section 8 of Act 32 in light of Article 107(b), which provides again retrospective legislation.

Essential Part of the Ratio for Civil Procedure:

Section 8 of Act 32 first came up for discussion in Akuffo-Addo & Ors V Quashie-Idun & Ors [1968] GLR 667 CA [Full Bench] . In that case, the court stated:

“I will begin resolving the case by first looking at the relevant legislation. Section 8(1) of Act 32 states as follows:

“A person, other than the Attorney-General or an officer of Attorney-General’s Department, shall not practice as a solicitor unless that person has in respect of that practice a valid annual solicitor’s licence issued by the council duly stamped and in the form set out in the Second Schedule”.

The interpretation of this section is not ambiguous. It simply means that one cannot sign documents or represents a party as a lawyer in court unless he has obtained a valid solicitor’s licence for that purpose. The section also sets the duration of the licence, which must be annual.

Their lordships concluded that:

The learned judges refusal to grant the first applicant audience in court was clearly in conformity with section 8 of the Legal Profession Act, Act 32 of 1960. As pointed out by Date-Bah JSC in the case of REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT [FAST TRACK DIVISION] ACCRA, EX PARTE OPERATION ASSOCIATION & ORS INTERESTED PARTIES [2009] SCGLR 390, “No judge has authority to grant immunity to a party from the consequence of breaching an Act of Parliament”.

In the case at the High Court the learned judge obviously would have erred under section 8(b) of Act 32 if he had granted the first applicant audience when he had not complied with the said section.

Principle in Case:

1. One can only represent a party as a lawyer in court if he has a valid solicitor’s licence.

2. One cannot sign documents, such as a writ or motion, unless he has a valid solicitor’s licence.