Charles C. Ikechi Okike V. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee & Ors (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JEGA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of Adeniyi F.A. Ademola, J. of the Federal High Court, Kano, delivered on 1st July, 2004, in suit no. FHC/K/JCP/ 7/2004, in which he dismissed the appellant’s application for the enforcement of his fundamental rights, in respect of the directions of the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers of 3rd April, 2003, ordering the striking off of the name of the appellant from the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria, and for the refund of the sum of $123,000.00 to the 2nd respondent. The facts of this case as can be gleaned from the totality of the records presented before this court, inclusive of the filed briefs of the parties are briefly set out below as follows:-

The appellant who was a legal practitioner in Nigeria, prior to the 3rd day of April, 2003, when the direction of his name to be struck off the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria was delivered by the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee of Body of Benchers (1st respondent), and practices as such at No.245, unity road, Kano. As a result of the solicitor/client relationship between the appellant and a company known as Kaiyos Systems Inc. a Japanese company, the appellant took instructions and accordingly recovered certain sum of money for the company.

As a result of the failure of the appellant to fully remit or account for an outstanding sum of $121,600 already collected from the High Court of Justice, Kano, which the appellant did not in anyway whatsoever deny, the managing director of the company in the person of Mr. A. Kaihama, wrote a petition to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Kano, dated 25th September, 1999, which petition obviously was not acted upon accordingly.

Consequent upon the above, the company which had earlier in October, 1996, appointed the 2nd respondent, Alhaji Salisu Mohammed as an attorney to collect and remit the said outstanding sum against the appellant to them vide a power of attorney dated June, 1996 took up the matter to higher authority by writing a petition, dated 27th September, 2000, to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (Hon. Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais) since all his efforts and that of his solicitors Ismail Gadzama & Associates for almost five years (1996-2000) to collect the money from the appellant had proved abortive even when the appellant deny collecting or being in possession of his client’s money totaling $121,600.00.

The 2nd respondent’s petition was directed to the then past president of NBA O.C.J. Okocha SAN for proper action, who then forwarded a copy of the petition to the appellant for his response and also the NBA disciplinary committee headed by the 3rd respondent Chief Bandele Aiku SAN for investigation.

The appellant accordingly, made his responses which in all, neither denied the allegation of the 2nd respondent. The NBA disciplinary committee investigation has shown by their report dated 19th October, 2001, did not also absolve the appellant, but found that a prima-facie case of professional misconduct has been established against him, which therefore called for the hearing of the petition by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the body of benchers headed by Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim, SAN.

It is a fact on record that the secretary of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the body of benchers Mr. Maidama A.U between 2nd May, 2002 and 20th March, 2003, when the 1st respondent sat in respect of the petition, against the appellant at the Court of Appeal headquarters in Abuja had forwarded six hearing notices to the appellant informing him of the several dates of hearing, which the appellant duly received and acknowledged, but failed to appear before the committee to defend himself physically.

The 1st respondent having considered all the evidence against the appellant made a direction on the 3rd day of April, 2003, that the appellant’s name be struck off the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria and for the refund of the sum of $123,000.00 to the 2nd respondent.

It was pursuant to the above stated directions that the appellant filed his application by way of motion on notice dated 23rd February, 2004, for the enforcement of his fundamental rights to fair hearing which application was duly heard and dismissed on the 1st day of July, 2004, by the Federal High Court No.2 Kano, presided over by Hon. Justice Adeniyi F.A. Ademola.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court dismissing his application as being misconceived, abuse of court process and baseless filed his notice of appeal containing eleven grounds of appeal dated the 15th day of July, 2004.

From the eleven grounds of appeal, counsel for the appellant formulated three issues for determination, the issues are stated thus:-

1. “Whether the learned trial Judge erred and misdirected himself in law, when he failed to hold that various conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the 1st respondent were not complied with and on those grounds quash the directions of 3rd April, 2003, and thus, occasioned a miscarriage of justice and/or denial of the appellant’s rights to fair hearing in the trial court.
2. Whether in view of the available and uncontroverted evidence before the trial court the 1st respondent could be said to have complied with sections 36(1) and 36(3) of the Constitution, which guarantee the appellant’s rights to fairness and impartiality in public hearing to determine his civil rights and obligations.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge failed to properly consider and rule upon some of the serious legal and constitutional issues raised by the appellant and descended into the arena by making out a case for the respondents thus occasioning a gross miscarriage of justice and/or denial of the appellants rights to fair hearing.”

Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand formulated only one issue for determination. The issue is stated thus:-

“Whether from the totality of the evidence before the court, the trial Judge was right in holding that the appellant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution was not violated by the 1st respondent.”