An Accra High Court has struck out a case challenging the legality of the formation of the Ghana Law Society (GLS), a new association of lawyers intended to challenge the monopoly of the Ghana Bar Association (GBA).
Private legal practitioner, Yaw Anning Boadu, filed a case at the High Court, General Jurisdiction 4, Accra, challenging the registration and recognition of the Ghana Law Society as another association of lawyers. He argued that the body is operating outside the legal framework governing professional associations, as stipulated in the Professional Bodies Registration Act, 1973 (NRCD 143).
The suit named the Ghana Law Society, the Registrar of Companies, and the General Legal Council (GLC) as defendants. He claims that the Ghana Law Society has been presenting itself to the public and state institutions as an authorised lawyers’ body with the power to issue or renew practising licences, pupillage licences, and licences for law chambers.
According to him, the Society’s public posture, including media engagements, is designed to suggest that it has lawful authority—either directly or by implication—from the GLC to perform licensing functions.
He argues that this creates a misleading impression, conflicts with statute, and weakens the regulatory architecture intended to govern professional bodies.
A key plank of his suit is that the statute governing the registration of professional bodies requires strict compliance with certain conditions, including an asserted threshold that a registered body should represent at least 75% of persons trained and qualified in the relevant profession.
Application
During the court’s sitting in March 2026, Mr Justin Pwavara Teriwajah, lawyer for the second defendant, argued that pursuant to Section 12 of NRCD 143, the appropriate forum for filing such a case was the Court of Appeal by way of an appeal. He noted that by filing a writ and statement of case at the High Court, the plaintiff’s case suffered from three defects, since NRCD 143 provides the forum, procedure, and right for challenging the registration of a professional association.
The application, which was supported by the other two defendants, stated that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action, since the law provides that where a procedure and forum exist for registering a grievance, such forum must be strictly followed.
Opposition
Counsel for the plaintiff, opposing the application, argued that pursuant to Article 140(1) of the Constitution, the High Court has jurisdiction over all matters, and that the legal principle of resorting to a prescribed forum was meant to provide alternatives to the High Court.
He added that Section 12 of NRCD 143 only provides an alternative remedy to an aggrieved person and cannot oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Ruling
However, delivering his ruling on March 31, 2026, the presiding judge, Justice Isaac Addo, agreed with the defendants that where a law provides a specific forum, that forum must be strictly followed.
He indicated that the plaintiff anchored his entire application on NRCD 143 and therefore could not approbate and reprobate. He noted that having relied on NRCD 143, the plaintiff was bound to follow the procedure and forum provided under Section 12 of the Act.
The court accordingly struck out the case for want of jurisdiction, stating that the High Court was not the proper forum to entertain the matter.
