Patigi Local Government V. I. K. Eleshin-nla, Esq & Anor. (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgement of the High court of Justice, ilorin, delivered on 28th day of July, 2006, coram Folayan J, in which the sum of Two million, three hundred thousand Naira was awarded in favour of the plaintiffs as professional charges for legal services rendered by them on behalf of the defendant.

The respondent herein were the plaintiffs before the trial court. The appellant Patigi Local Government, was then the defendant. The plaintiffs’ sued the defendant for a claim of:-

(a) A sum of One Million Five hundred and Eight Thousand Naira (N1,580.000.00) being annual

retainership fee from year, 2000 – 2006 at the rate of N250,000.00 per annum. The respondents

conceded that the Appellant has actually paid a sum of N170,000 as part payment for the year 2000 and

(b) A sum of One Million Naira, being professional fee for defending the defendant/appellant in two snits’

namely,

(1) Alhaji Sule Tahir & Another v. Patigi Local Governent (defendant).

(2) Patigi Local Government Vs. Femi Akinwale.

The total claim of the respondents therefore was N2,300,000.00, (Two Million Three Hundred Thousand Naira. I refer to Exhibit ‘C’ at page 9 of the Record of Proceeding.

It is to be noted that the Suit was placed on the undefended list. It appears that the defendant was slightly out of time for filing a Notice of intention to defend the suit. On 03/4/2006 the appellant, as defendant, filed a motion for extension of time within which it can file its notice of Intention to defend and an order deeming the attached Notice of intention to defend as duly filed and served out of time. The trial court granted this application despite the fact that the respondents filed a Counter Affidavit against it.

In the lower court, the Affidavit evidence of the respondents was saying that they were able to establish, as a fact, legal retainership with the appellant i.e. between themselves. They averred that their claims are never statute-barred and finally were able to disclose that the appellant, as defendant, has no defence to the suit.

The defendant claimed that it was allowed by the trial court to file its Notice of intention to defend the suit in Exhibit ‘C’ which did not comply with Section 16 of the Legal Practitioner Act the thereby rendered the claims of the plaintiff incompetent. That being the case, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was said to be statute barred.