MENU
CLOSE
The Law Platform
© Copyright 2021 - 2026
The Supreme Court in the eloquent voice of H/L Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi has given the stick to the learned Emmanuel Aboagye for acting as a lawyer for a Plaintiff and a Defendant in a property situate at Ejisu in the Ashanti Region of the Republic of Ghana.
The Supreme Court condemned Mr. Aboagye for professional misconduct by way of being conflicted in legal representation in the case of MADAM AKOSUA ADADE v. OKESSEKU MINTAH [TLP-SC-2026-17]. The Supreme Court in this case, through the careful lens of Kulendi JSC observed that Mr. Aboagye was the lawyer for the Plaintiff at the circuit court where the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent secured judgment and commenced execution processes over a piece of land at Ejisu but yet still, turned around to act as Counsel for the Defendant/Judgment-debtor.
In this instance, Mr. Aboagye sued the Plaintiff for the Defendant over the same piece of land he acted for the Plaintiff over. He sued for the award of damages to the Defendant, his new client, against the Plaintiff, his former client, for razing down the building of the Defendant/judgment-debtor which judgment he had helped execute and gone as far as filed contempt proceedings against the Defendant, his new found client .
Per the decision of the Apex Court delivered on the 22nd day of April, 2026, the Plaintiff through Mr. Aboagye secured a writ of possession to execute the judgment secured from the Circuit Court. The Court at page 16 of the reported decision and paragraph 16 of Justice Kulendi's concurrence observed as follows:
"From my reading of the record, this suit is an offshoot of Suit No.: 58/03 entitled Madam Akosua Addai vrs. Okesseku Minta Afari which was filed before the Circuit Court and a judgment delivered on 12th August, 2013 adjudging Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter called “the Plaintiff”) as owner of Plot 35 Block E, Ejisu. The record further reveals that Counsel who executed the judgment in Suit No.: 58/03 for the benefit of the Plaintiff is the same Lawyer for the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant (hereinafter called “the Defendant”) in this appeal. In fact, pages 43, 45, 46, 47, and 49 of the Record of Appeal shows counsel as having filed various processes including motion for writ of possession to issue and an application for the committal of the Defendant for contempt."
3rd Jun, 2026
6th May, 2025
14th Feb, 2025
14th Feb, 2025
11th Oct, 2023
Lawyers be warned
The Court in reliance on Rule 21 of the LEGAL PROFESSION (PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE) RULES, 2020 (LI 2434) demonstrated the importance of lawyers staying clear of conflicting situations with their clients.
At page 15 of the decision as reported on our case report, Kulendi JSC held that "The legal profession is a calling grounded in fidelity, candour, loyalty, confidentiality and the unwavering duty of counsel to uphold the dignity, sanctity and integrity of judicial proceedings and the Courts. 10. The prohibition against conflict of interest is a long established rule of the legal profession, developed over centuries to preserve the integrity of legal representation and to ensure that confidential information is never weaponised against a former client."
In light of the disturbing facts unfolding before the eyes of the Court of the conduct of Mr. Aboagye, the Court in its cautionary tale delivered itself in the following words: "In respect of the same matter or substantially the same matter therefore, one lawyer has acted for the Plaintiff herein as counsel in Suit No.: 58/03 and for Defendant in respect of this appeal. We deprecate this conduct and caution lawyers and practitioners against such conduct and practices. It detracts from the ethical standards set for practitioners"
A Conflicted lawyer's process can be nullified
On the consequences of a lawyer acting in a conflicted position, the court held that "The consequence of a breach of this duty by lawyers and law firms may not only result in disciplinary action being taken against such conduct, but may also lead to the invalidation of processes filed or, at the very least, the striking out of such a lawyer’s name from the suit as counsel. Courts cannot shut their eyes to conduct that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings."
Minded by the repercussions to the case of a client and a lawyer when a lawyer acts in conflict against the interest of his Client, the court in the following words as below emphasised the need for Lawyers to act professionally: "We cannot overemphasize the fact that the bar remains a noble profession precisely because society expects lawyers to maintain standards higher than those ordinarily imposed on commercial actors. Consequently, lawyers must pay heed lest they bring themselves and the esteemed profession of the law into avoidable reproach and disrepute."
Unlock premium articles, PDF downloads, cases and more
Learn how to subscribe