Supreme Court reacts as lawyer acts for plaintiff and defendant in same land dispute

The Supreme Court has condemned a lawyer, Emmanuel Aboagye, for professional misconduct after he acted for both a plaintiff and a defendant in a land dispute at Ejisu in the Ashanti Region.

The decision was delivered in the case of Madam Akosua Adade v Okesseku Mintah (TLP-SC-2026-17), with Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi leading the court’s caution on conflict of interest in legal practice.

DACF: AG justifies payment of public funds into personal accounts Of MPs

According to a report by thelawplatform.com on June 22, 2026, the court found that Aboagye previously represented the plaintiff in earlier proceedings at the Circuit Court, where judgment was obtained, and execution steps were taken over the disputed land.

However, he later switched sides to represent the defendant in the same matter.

The Supreme Court is reported to have noted that the lawyer did not only change representation but also filed processes against his former client in relation to the same land, including actions tied to enforcement and contempt proceedings.

Justice Kulendi, in his concurring opinion, explained that the same lawyer who executed judgment for the plaintiff later acted for the opposing party in related proceedings.

“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 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 in this appeal,” the report stated.

The court reportedly further observed that the same lawyer had filed several processes, including motions for writ of possession and contempt applications, in the same dispute.

“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,” the court noted.

Justice Kulendi stressed that the conduct amounted to a clear breach of legal ethics and professional standards.

“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,” he said.

He added that conflict of interest rules exist to protect the justice system and prevent abuse of confidential information.

“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,” he stated.

The Supreme Court also cautioned lawyers against such conduct, saying it undermines the credibility of the legal profession.

“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,” the court warned.

The court further stated that breaches of professional duty can attract serious consequences, including disciplinary action and possible removal of a lawyer from a case.

Supreme Court @150: Chief Justice calls for accessible, transparent justice system

“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,” it held.

It added that courts must act to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings when such breaches occur.

“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,” the court said.

The Supreme Court urged legal practitioners to uphold ethical standards to avoid bringing the profession into disrepute.

MAG/VPO

Gunmen open fire on Sarah Adwoa Safo's vehicle - Reports