body-container-line-1
13.10.2015 General News

Atta Akyea Sues Client Over Fee

By Daily Guide
Atta Akyea Sues Client Over Fee
13.10.2015 LISTEN

Samuel Atta Akyea, an Accra-based private legal practitioner, has dragged his client, Dimitex Company Limited, to court demanding an outstanding balance of his legal fee in the sum of GH¢270,000.

The plaintiff has also sued Total Petroleum Limited as second defendants in the suit filed at the Fast Track Division of the High Court.

Mr. Atta Akyea, who is also MP for Abuakwa South in the Eastern Region, is claiming that he was engaged by his client to negotiate the sale of Dimitex Company to Total Petroleum and therefore had to be paid GH¢300,000, out of which only GH¢30,000 was paid.

Highly placed legal sources explained that Mr Atta Akyea's writ is billed to fail because he failed to comply with Section 36 of the Legal Profession Act, which provides that a lawyer can only go to court over legal fees after he had given the client 28 days' notice.

The motion is slated for October 14, 2015 with defence counsel describing the application as frivolous.

The plaintiff further argued that he charged GH¢300,000 for his service but the defendant only paid GH¢30,000 – a situation he described in his statement of claim as the defendants' attempt to use 'blackmail to overreach' him.

The MP in his statement of claim, wants an order compelling Dimitex to settle the balance.

Mr. Atta Akyea also wants an order of perpetual injunction restraining Total Petroleum from issuing a cheque or transferring monies or doing anything relating to the outstanding consideration in favour of Dimitex until the final determination of the matter.

Frivolous Application
But Nkrabea and Associates, lawyers for Dimitex, in their statement of defence, stated that the company fully paid off Mr. Atta Akyea the agreed contract fee of GH¢30,000.

It stated that as a result, the first defendant responded that the plaintiff had not rendered any too demanding service and that the first defendant rather did all the negotiations so they would pay GH¢20,000 whereupon Mr. Atta Akyea pleaded for more and Dimitex agreed to settle on GH¢30,000.

The 28-paragraph statement of defence further indicated that Dimitex, without prompting, freely paid GH¢30,000 to Mr. Atta Akyea and that all he had to do, if there were any accounts outstanding or deductibles to be made, was for him to send a bill to Dimitex.

The defendant's lawyers queried, 'What then are the essential issues triable in this case? The core is whether the agreed fee was GH¢300,000 or GH¢30,000. While we are haggling over the debate, does it mean the second defendant should be stopped from paying the balance to the first defendant so that they can have access to the land they have bought?'

Counsel stated that in the unlikely event that the plaintiff wins the case, he can be easily compensated in costs and interest, insisting that Dimitex is a limited liability company with assets that can be fallen upon.

While praying the court to throw out the suit because it is frivolous, counsel maintained, 'Of course in law consideration needs not be adequate, but a lawyer writes a letter of consent and engages a surveyor who charges GH¢1,800 and then just for this you want to be paid GH¢300,000? You are not satisfied with being paid GH¢30,000 but you want more?'

[email protected] 

By Jeffrey De-Graft Johnson 

body-container-line