Anthony Ojigho V. Nigerian Bar Association & Anor (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the direction of the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) of the Body of Benchers contained in the Direction of the LPDC dated December 2nd, 2013 which found the Appellant guilty of infamous conduct in the course of discharging his professional duties as a legal practitioner contrary to Rules 1, 14 and 15 (3) of the Rules of Professional Ethics and punishable under Section 12 (1)(a) of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 (as amended). Consequently, the Committee directed that the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria should strike out his name from the Roll of Legal Practitioners. Being dissatisfied with the Direction, the Appellant exercised his constitutional right of appeal to this Honourable Court vide a Notice of Appeal of five (5) grounds dated and filed 20th December, 2013.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The 1st Respondent received a petition dated 14th day of June 2009 from the firm of Emeka Madiebo & Co against the Appellant for fraudulently increasing the price of a property which the Petitioner (Banjo Onanubi) paid the vendor

1

through the Appellant. The Appellant added additional sum of N10 Million to the price of the property on the pre that same would be paid over to the buyer. The Petitioner alleged that the Appellant failed to do so. It was alleged that the Appellant fraudulently induced the Petitioner into paying N40 Million for a property instead of N30 Million that was demanded by the vendor.

The case of the Petitioner was that it was the Vendor who informed him that the excess sum of N10 Million had been returned to be paid to him through the Appellant being in excess of reserved price. When confronted, the Appellant admitted the wrongdoing and made an initial refund of N3 Million and issued a cheque for the repayment of outstanding N7 Million which he later countermanded (stopped). At the hearing, the Appellant chose not to appear at the LPDC but was instead represented by his Counsel, Mathias Emeribe.

The LPDC observed that where a Solicitor engrosses an agreement for both vendor and purchaser and both of them rely on his legal advice, he is Counsel or Solicitor to both parties irrespective of the fact that one of them introduced him to the other.

2

The LPDC found that in the circumstances of the case the Appellant owed a fiduciary duty to both parties to the transaction and that he was in breach of same. The LPDC finally held that it was imprudent of the Appellant not to have entered a formal defence and to have sought to defend himself of very serious allegations of professional misconduct and impropriety through the avenue of his Counsel’s written address.

The LPDC found the Appellant guilty of the infamous conduct in the course of the performance of his duty as a legal practitioner and accordingly directed the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to strike out his name from the Roll of Legal Practitioners. Being dissatisfied by the decision of the LPDC, the Appellant filed this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Appellant formulated two issues at paragraph 3.00 (3.01) (a) and (b) of its Appellant’s Brief, thus:

“1) Whether having regard to the findings of the Committee in the face of the evidence adduced during trial, there has not been a miscarriage of justice giving rise to the direction of the Committee