Emmanuel Armah, Esq V. Chief Albert Korubo Horsfall (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the Judgment of Femi-Adeniyi J of the High Court of Lagos State, Lagos Judicial Division in Suit No LD/1053/2007 delivered on the 29th day of January 2014. The Appellant as Claimant instituted this suit against the Respondent as Defendant on 22/08/07 claiming as follows:
“1. The sum of N650,000,000.00 (Six Hundred and Fifty Million Naira Only) being professional fees for legal services rendered to you at your request sometime in the year 2003 in Lagos within jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and in respect of which a bill of charges specifying work done has been sent to you and to which you failed, omitted or refused to be taxed in the manner and within the period stipulated in the Legal Practitioner’s Act and by so doing or failing to so act, you have admitted the indebtedness in the amount claimed above by the Claimant.
2. Interest on the above sum at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the initial demand until the entire judgment is liquidated.
3. Cost of the action.”

The Appellant’s case at the Lower Court is

1

that instructions were given by the Respondent to Armah Law Chambers in 2003 to prepare a set of documents to carry into effect a joint venture/partnership transaction between the Respondent (Chief Horsefall) and a Spanish company COPINASA SA QUESTO. The transaction was to be carried on under the auspices of COPINASA NIGERIA LIMITED. Pursuant to those instructions four sets of Agreements were prepared, namely, An All parties Agreement, Deed of Appointment of Horsefall and Co, Deed of Appointment of Chief Albert Korubo Horsefall as Special Consultant, a Power of Attorney authorizing Antonio Garia Lopez to raise N6.5 Billion naira or its equivalent in Euro currency. The Appellant claimed that these documents were prepared and engrossed and sent to the law office of Chief Albert Korubo Horsefall for execution by the Respondent. A claim was thereafter made by the Appellant for the legal services rendered. This prompted an exchange of correspondence, whereby the Respondent disclaimed liability for the fees, saying the instructions were given to Mrs Armah personally as part of the retainer arrangement he had with her.

The Respondent’s case is that he did not at

2

any time engage the Appellant or his chambers to handle any legal matter for him; that he placed the Appellant’s wife on a retainership in her personal capacity for his confidential matters because of their close family relationship and paid her promptly for services rendered including the service which forms the Appellant’s cause of action.

In the midst of the dispute, Mrs Tiena Armah died and the appellant consequently reasserted the claims of his Law Office to the fees outstanding for the work done.

When the matter could not be resolved amicably, the Appellant instituted this action under the Summary Procedure Rules and claimed as set out above. The Respondent opposed the application, filing in response a Counter- Affidavit and Statement of Defence. The learned trial judge, Ishola J ruled that the defence was a sham and entered judgment for the Appellant. The Respondent appealed against the said judgment in Appeal No CA/L/168/2010. The appeal was allowed by this Court on 02/06/11 and leave was granted to the Respondent to defend the suit. The Court also ordered that the matter be tried before another Judge. The suit was consequently reassigned to

3

Femi-Adeniyi J who proceeded to try the matter on the merits. At the trial the Appellant testified in person and tendered 4 exhibits. The Respondent also testified in person and tendered 4 exhibits. The thrust of the Respondents defence to the appellant’s claims was hinged on the following facts viz:
(i) That the Respondent had no solicitor/client relationship with the Appellant given fact that the Respondent engaged and/or contracted Mrs. Tiena Armah and not the Appellant to handle personal legal matters for which she was duly paid,
(ii) The proposed joint venture between Copinasa Nigeria Limited and some Spanish Corporate interests as well as the road construction contract sought to be secured from the Rivers State government never materialized.
(iii) That legal services relating to the subject matter of this case was required for the benefit of Copinasa Nigeria Limited and not the Defendant herein.
?
At the close of trial the parties adopted their final written addresses. The learned trial judge delivered judgment on 29/01/14 dismissing the Appellant’s claims on the ground that there was no evidence to establish a solicitor-client

4

relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent. His Lordship further held that Mrs. Tiena Armah had known and accepted from the onset that Copinasa Nigeria Ltd was to pay for the services rendered and therefore the Respondent could not be held liable for the fees.