Korboe Vrs Amosa [2016] GHASC 45 (20 July 2016)

Korboe Vrs Amosa [2016] GHASC 45 (20 July 2016)

The majority held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance or miscarriage of justice arising from the Supreme Court’s prior decision. The Court reaffirmed that processes filed by a lawyer without a valid solicitor’s licence are a nullity under section 8(1) of Act 32, and that the review jurisdiction is not intended to provide a further appeal or to remedy errors of law absent exceptional circumstances. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 45
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent/applicant: Henry Nuertey Korboe; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Francis Amosa
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
20 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Review Motion (supreme Court of Ghana) / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Application for review dismissed by majority; dissenting opinion would have granted review and restored applicant’s processes.
Legal Topics
Validity of Court Processes Filed by Unlicensed Solicitor, Review Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Consequences of Breach of Legal Profession Act, Client Liability for Solicitor's Licensing Default
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Regulation Validity of Court Processes Filed by Unlicensed Solicitor Review Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Consequences of Breach of Legal Profession Act Client Liability for Solicitor's Licensing Default

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Nuertey Korboe

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent/applicant

Francis Amosa

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Motion (supreme Court of Ghana) / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether processes filed by a lawyer without a valid solicitor’s licence are a nullity under section 8(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32)
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court’s prior decision occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the applicant due to his lawyer’s default
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant review of the Supreme Court’s decision

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance or miscarriage of justice arising from the Supreme Court’s prior decision. The Court reaffirmed that processes filed by a lawyer without a valid solicitor’s licence are a nullity under section 8(1) of Act 32, and that the review jurisdiction is not intended to provide a further appeal or to remedy errors of law absent exceptional circumstances. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed by majority; dissenting opinion would have granted review and restored applicant’s processes.