Court of Appeal declines to sit on Lawyer Sosu’s appeal
The Court of Appeal on Wednesday declined jurisdiction over a motion which prayed it to stay the three-year suspension imposed on a human rights lawyer, Mr Francis Xavier Sosu, until an appeal challenging his suspension is determined.
Advertisement
According to the presiding judge, Mr Justice Henry Kwofie, Mr Sosu’s appeal should have been filed at a lower court or a quasi-judicial institution such as the General Legal Council (GLC) instead of the Court of Appeal.
Delivering its ruling on an application for stay of his suspension pending the outcome of his appeal challenging the suspension, the court held that its jurisdiction had not been properly invoked.
Mr Justice Kwofie noted that he was not in a position to grant the application for stay because justice is to be dispensed through the law and not through “sympathy.”
But a supplementary affidavit in support of the motion on notice for stay of execution of Mr Sosu’s suspension pending the outcome of his appeal, dated July 4, 2017 and sworn to by Mr Sosu, indicated that “in the absence of the clear rules of procedure pursuant to section 19 of the Act 32 with respect to which forum a person aggrieved by a decision of the respondent could file an appeal and aware of the general requirement that an appeal should be filed in the court below, I visited the offices of the respondent on June 7, 2017 to file my notice of appeal.”
“On reaching there, I was informed that I should go to the Court of Appeal because notices of appeal in respect of decisions of the respondent are not filed with the respondent which has no registry.”
The Court of Appeal’s decision is invariably asking Mr Sosu to go to a lower court or return to the GLC, a quasi-judicial body.
The court did not award cost.
Mr Samuel Cudjoe, counsel for Mr Sosu, told the Daily Graphic that his client would appeal the decision.
Background
The GLC on June 1, 2017 suspended Mr Sosu after it found him guilty of overcharging a client and also violating the legal profession’s code of conduct rule that prevents lawyers from advertising their services.
He has since filed an appeal, describing his suspension as a “substantial miscarriage of justice’’ and also a violation of Article 19 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.
He is also of the view that the suspension imposed on him is “harsh and excessive.”
The legal practitioner is, therefore, seeking an order from the Court of Appeal dismissing his suspension.
Halt the suspension
Making a case for the stay of execution at the court on July 11, 2017, Mr Samuel Cudjoe argued that the appeal had a great chance of succeeding and, therefore, it was in the interest of justice for his client’s suspension to be halted until the appeal was determined.
He prayed the court, presided over by a single justice, Mr Justice Kwofie, to consider the fact that if his client’s appeal succeeded and the stay of execution had not been granted, he would have “lost something great’’.
“Exercise your discretion and grant the stay of execution. Apart from law, the applicant has no other profession,” he pleaded.
Mr Cudjoe further argued that there were no rules that constituted the “grave misconduct’’ which the GLC attributed to his client for the overestimation of legal fees.
“Rules have been made with regard to professional misconduct in the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) but not grave misconduct. The charge was, therefore, not properly laid,” he added.
Counsel also contended that per Section 29 of Act 32, the punishment for overestimation of legal fees was a refund of the fees and a fine of twice the amount charged and not a suspension.
GLC’s opposition
In his response, the lawyer for the GLC, Mr Kizito Beyuo, opposed the application for stay of execution, describing it as “incompetent.”
According to him, Mr Sosu had failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
The right practice, he said, was for the suspended lawyer to have filed the appeal at the GLC, since its Disciplinary Committee was a quasi-judicial body, and if he was not satisfied, he could move to the Court of Appeal.
