The Supreme Court through the authoritative voice of the learned and respected Amadu J.S.C. has advised lawyers to act on behalf of their clients as lawyers and not as mere agents dispatched by their clients to attend and observe to report back on court proceedings.

The Supreme Court Bench which was Presided by Justice Pwamang, a prominent voice of recent Supreme Court judgements was compelled to offer this advise in the case of Gilbert Marshall Ofosu Agyare v Julian Sanders (Substituted by Legrande Paul Sanders) (Suit No. J4/62/2023).

Events which prompted the Supreme Court to speak on effective representation of clients by lawyers was that the above named case was listed and called for judgement. The appellant whose appeal the Supreme Court was delivering judgement on failed to appear in court or dispatch an agent in his stead. The bench surprised at the absence of the appellant in court pointed its attention to counsel representing the absent party.

Justice Amadu queried Counsel, who was on his feet and appeared a little overtaken by the interest of the Bench in the absence of his client. Justice Amadu requested the last time Counsel was in touch with his client. Counsel who was holding brief for his Senior did not immediately answer. Amadu J.S.C shot another question to him asking if the client was informed that the Court was delivering judgement in the matter. This time around Counsel muttered an answer which was in the affirmative.

Amadu J.S.C in explaining the reason why the Court was interested in the information said that the court needed to be sure the absent client was a "juristic person", suggesting the need of the Bench to know if the appellant has the capacity to sue and Counsel has the authorization to act on the absent client's behalf. Per Amadu J.S.C., this will adequately inform Counsel of the right processes to take and also take steps to notify the Court of same.

Counsel for the absent client who had now appeared better composed told the Court the client was scheduled to be in Court, suggesting his inability to explain why the client failed to be present. Further questions by Justice Amadu appeared to have been cut short by the intervention of Justice Pwamang who asked Counsel if he was in the same Chambers as his Senior whose brief he held to which he answered in the affirmative. Upon this disclosure, the Bench moved on to deliver its judgement in the matter.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thelawplatform/video/7372629620727844101?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7239416459838375429

Judgement and more grounds for advise

The Supreme Court in the voice of Pwamang J.S.C. rendered their judgement in the matter. The absent appellant's appeal was dismissed in its entirety. Counsel for the respondent requested cost of GH¢40,000 against the Appellant to which Counsel for the Appellant naturally offered a far lower amount.

Justice Pwamang turned his gaze at Counsel for the Appellant and said "you see why it is important to have your client here?". Wearing a wry smile, Justice Pwamang went on with further reasons for his question. He said that the absent Appellant will personally be in the know of cost awarded and the reason for the cost and not hear the news of same from Counsel which the client may have issues appreciating. The requested amount of GH¢40,000 was agreed on by the Bench and awarded against the absent Appellant whose appeal had also failed.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thelawplatform/video/7337323152269200646?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7239416459838375429

Come to Court with record of Appeal

In another unrelated matter of Dr. Vincent Kwaku Hewlett v R Amanor Akrofi (Suit No. J4/65/2023) the Supreme Court again sounded caution to lawyers who have appeal cases before it to always appear in court with their copies of the record of appeal. In this case, the Chief Justice was the Presiding Judge.

The Supreme Court sounded this caution when the Court withheld its judgement in the case owing to a failure by the parties to carry out an order by the court below for a composite plan to resolve the dispute over land in the case. Justice Pwamang sought to direct Counsels to the page of the Record of Appeal (ROA) where the order from the Court below was given for the Composite plan but Counsels failed to appear in court with their copies.

Click to read also:

Constitutionality of law against gay and anal sex - SC to deliver Judgement on July 27th

The Supreme Court turned to sound the caution upon knowledge of the failure of Counsels to come to court with their copies of the ROA. Pwamang J.S.C. suggested to the Bar that the fact that written submissions have been filed does not mean lawyers can appear before the Supreme Court without their copy of the ROA.