?Go back to Law School? - Judge tells Ward-Brew

(The Ghanaian Times) - Mr T.N. Ward-Brew, the president of the thinly populated Bar Association of Ghana (BAG) and the disputed leader of the Democratic People?s Party, has been asked to go back to the Law School to take his lessons all over again.

It was a devastating moment at the Supreme Court last Thursday when a judge of the court told Lawyer Ward-Brew straight in the face to go back to the law school for tutorials. He was defending a case at the fully-packed court. The judge fired, ?You think you can go on deceiving the court and throw dust in the eyes of the court. You better go back to the law school,? when Ward-Brew refused to accept his mistakes even when they had been pointed out to him.

The panel, which was made up of Justice (Mrs) Bamford-Addo, presiding, Justice Kpegah, Justice Adjabeng, Justice Adzoe and Justice Afreh, further ruled against Ward-Brew in a motion for certiorari brought against him and awarded a cost of ?1 million.

Ward-Brew?s alleged professional incompetence was put on display at the Supreme Court when he went to defend one Augustine Owusu-Achaw, a businessman, who, in the early part of 1999, obtained financial assistance of $3,400 and ?3,049,000 from Mr and Mrs Ogoe (plaintiffs) and signed a promissory note to pay back on the 9th April, the same year.

Owusu-Achaw, allegedly failed to go by the agreement when the date of payment was due and he was subsequently hauled before an Accra High Court on 16 April, last year by the plaintiffs, who demanded their money with interest. When a writ of summons was served on Owusu Achaw, he failed to enter appearance in court within the eight days? time limit issued by the court.

This enabled the plaintiff to apply for judgment against him. Consequently, the court presided over by Mr Justice J.K. Ebiasa, on the 25th September, last year, entered judgement against the defendant to the tune of ?61,660,375. Plaintiffs, subsequently, went into execution and seized the defendant?s goods.

Owusu Achaw later applied to the same court and judgement was set aside as the court ordered for the release of the seized goods to him. The plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the decision of the court, filed a motion for stay of execution, which instead of being filed at the High Court, was inadvertently filed at the Court of Appeal. On realising the error, counsel for plaintiffs, Nana Kwasi Agyemang-Prempeh, applied to the Court of Appeal to withdraw the motion. The court, presided over by Mr Justice Essilfie Bondzie, granted the application and struck out the motion as withdrawn with liberty.

After hearing counsel for the defendant on the substantive appeal, which was not, and is still not before the court, without a corresponding hearing of counsel for the plaintiffs, the judge affirmed the lower court?s (High Court) order, asking the plaintiffs to release the defendant?s property to him.

The plaintiffs, on 25 February this year, filed another motion for stay of execution at the High Court. Thereafter, counsel for the defendant, Mr Ward-Brew, filed a motion in the Court of Appeal attaching the plaintiff, Mrs Ogoe and her attorney and Johnson Complex Limited, the auctioneer, for contempt of court for refusing to release the defendant?s property to him as directed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

On 23 April this year, the contempt proceedings came before the Court of Appeal, presided over by the same Mr Justice Essilfie Bondzie, who affirmed the High Court?s decision to release the defendant?s property to him. The case was adjourned to 30 May this year.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs, disgruntled with the order made by the Court of Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Essilefie Bondzie, had on 18 April filed a motion at the Supreme Court for certiorari to quash the Court of Appeal?s order, asking the plaintiffs to release the defendant?s property to him.

When the Supreme Court sat last Thursday on the motion of certiorari, counsel for plaintiffs, Nana Kwasi Agyeman-Prempeh, submitted that since the motion for stay of execution, which was wrongly filed in the Court of Appeal, had been struck out as withdrawn and since the record of appeal had not been transmitted to the registrar of the Court of Appeal and appeal duly entered, the court was not served with the appeal and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to make the order it made. Counsel for plaintiff, therefore, asked the court to quash the order affirmed by the Appeal Court.

In his reply, counsel for defendant/respondent, Mr Ward-Brew, argued that the moment an appeal was filed in a lower court, the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make the order it made, he asserted. The court, however, considered this proposition of law preposterous and unfounded and proceeded to rule against the defendant, while the court granted plaintiff?s application, as the appeal order was quashed.