Ami Mike Investment Ltd. V. Mr. A. Ladipo (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

The Appellant herein as Plaintiff instituted Suit NO.1/681/95 in the Oyo State High Court under the undefended list. The claim against the Respondent, who was the defendant in the suit, was for the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Five hundred Naira. There was a client/solicitor relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent. The sum being claimed was balance of the money the Respondent recovered for the Appellant but which the former failed to pay to latter.

After the commencement of suit No. 1/681/95 by the Appellant, the Respondent sent a bill of costs for the professional services rendered and sought to use same to counter claim in the very suit. Judgment was entered in favour of the Appellant while Respondent’s counter claim was discountenanced.

The Respondent subsequently commenced the instant suit NO.1/433/98 at the lower court seeking to recover the professional fees he was unable to in his counter claim in the earlier suit No. 1/681/95.

Appellant’s claim is for the sum of Three Hundred and Fifty Seven Thousand Naira endorsed on the bill of costs.

Pleadings were ordered, filed, exchanged and amended.

By an application dated 7th February, 2001, the Appellant herein challenged the competence of Respondent’s action on the ground that:-

“1. The Plaintiff/Respondent did not serve or deliver his bills of costs one month before filing this suit as required by the Legal Practitioners Act and

ALTERNATIVELY:-

The Plaintiff/Respondent did not Serve or deliver a competent or valid bills of costs as required under the Legal Practitioners Act before filing this suit.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent’s letter with its annexures all dated 1st November, 1995 which he described and relies upon as his bills of costs have been declared incompetent by the court in the judgment delivered in suit No. 1/681/95 on the 6th day of May, 1995 between Amimike Invest. Co. Limited v. Akin Ladipo”.

The lower court heard arguments in the Application and in a considered ruling dated 11th day of April 2001, dismissed the Appellant’s objection. Being dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellant has appealed against same on a notice containing three grounds.

Parties have filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Same were adopted and relied upon at the hearing of the appeal.

At page four of the Appellant’s briefs an indication that Appellant has abandoned its first ground of Appeal. The appeal, therefore, endures on the basis of the 2nd and 3rd grounds of Appeal only. From these two surviving grounds of appeal, four issues have purportedly been distilled in the Appellant’s brief as having arisen fro the determination of the appeal.

These issues read:-