Savannah Bank of Nigeria Plc V. Oladipo Opanubi (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGUNTADE, J.C.A.

The respondent had as plaintiff before Adeniji J. at the Lagos High Court sued the appellant applicant on the basis of quantum meruit upon a contract between the parties. By the contract, the respondent, a legal practitioner, was to employ his services to recover from a third party a sum of N99m which was owed to the appellant/applicant. The respondent’s fee was to be 10% of the amount collected for the appellant/applicant. The facts showed that the respondent had sued and got judgment for the appellant/applicant against the third party. But before the actual recovery of the Judgment debt the appellant/applicant de-briefed the respondent, whereupon the respondent sued in contract for quantum meruit.

Adeniji J. refused the claim. But this court in a unanimous judgment delivered 31st May, 1999 allowed the appeal by the respondent and awarded to him the sum of Five Million Naira on the basis of quantum meruit.

The appellant/applicant was dissatisfied with our judgment. He has since appealed to the Supreme Court on the following grounds of appeal.

“a. The Court of Appeal erred in the law when it held that the respondent is entitled to claim on quantum meruit from the appellant.

PARTICULARS

1. The contract between the appellant and the respondent clearly provided that respondent’s professional fees would be fixed to the actual amount recovered by the respondent.
2. The respondent did not establish that the sum upon which his claim on quantum meruit was based on and had infact been paid to the appellant by ICON LTD. (Merchant Bankers)
3. The court cannot make a contract for the parties.

(b) The Court of Appeal erred in law in awarding the sum of N5,000.00 (Five Million Naira) to the respondent on quantum meruit against the appellant.

PARTICULARS

1. There was no evidence on record upon which the Court of Appeal could have concluded that the sum upon which the respondent’s claim on quantum meruit has actually been received by the appellant From ICON LTD (Merchant Bankers) as to make the respondent entitled to any sum at all.

(c) The Court of Appeal gave undue weight to irrelevant consideration when in relating to the assessment of the respondent’s claim it held as per Oguntade, J.C.A. thus:

“It is obvious from what I have discussed so far that the plaintiff in the instant case ought to have succeeded in recovering a reasonable recompense for his services up to the stage where he got judgment against ICON LTD for the defendant. It is inequitable to deny him a fair remuneration for his services. It is also a situation which dishonest employers may employ against the interest of lawyers properly instructed. They agreed the remuneration to be paid. The lawyer puts to use his learning and skill to execute the instruction of the employer. When success was in prospect on the assignment, the employer, de-briefed the lawyer. When sued to pay the agreed remuneration, the employer argued that because success had not been achieved when the lawyer was de-briefed, the lawyer was not entitled to compensation. That would be an intolerable situation.”

The appellant/applicant has now brought this application for a stay of execution of the judgment of this court pending the determination of the appeal to the Supreme Court. In paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit in support the applicant deposed thus:

“5. That the respondent is likely to succeed on appeal as there are substantial grounds of appeal.

6. That in the likely event that the appeal succeeds, it is unlikely that the appellant will be able to refund any sums paid to him in execution of the judgment of this court.
7. That the respondent is willing to deposit in the name of the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal the judgment sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) in an interest yielding account in a reputable bank as this Honourable Court may direct pending the determination of the appeal to the Supreme Court.
8. That it is in the interest of justice that this application for stay of execution be granted to secure the judgment debt pending the determination of the appeal to the Supreme Court.
9. That no injustice will occur to the plaintiff if this application is granted and I depose to this affidavit in good faith.”

The respondent filed a counter-affidavit. Paragraphs 6 to 12 of the said counter-affidavit read thus:

“6. That I am a legal practitioner of 26 years standing, a man of substantial means with good reputation and of high integrity.