Anamelechi Iteogu V. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (2009)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
W.S. N. ONNOGHEN, JSC
This is an appeal against the decision of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee delivered on the 7th day of June, 2006 in which the appellant, a Legal Practitioner, was found liable for misconduct in a professional respect contrary to Rules 24 and 49(a) and (b) of the Rule of Professional Conduct in the legal profession, punishable under section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. 207, Laws of the federation of Nigeria, 1990, as amended, and the appellant was therein ordered to pay the sum of N9,500,000.00 (Nine million, five hundred thousand naira) to the petitioner, Bishop Ndarake James Antigha in addition to the name of the appellant being directed to be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners. The complaints against the appellant are as follows:-
“1. That you Anamalechi Iteogu as counsel received the sum of N47,543, 754. 75 (Forty seven million, five hundred and forty three thousand, seven hundred and fifty four naira, seventy-five kobo) from the Ministry of Defence as compensation for land acquired by the Federal Government for the establishment of Naval Base of Akwa Ibom State but refused and neglected to pay over to Bishop Ndarake James Antigha (the complainant) his own share as one of the claimants shown in the schedule of claims, all contrary to Rules 24 and 49(a) and (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession and section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1990 as amended by Decree 21 of 1994.
- That you Anamalechi Iteogu as counsel received the sum of N47,543,754.75 (Forty-seven million, five hundred and forty three thousand, seven hundred and fifty four naira, seventy five kobo) on behalf of your clients from the Ministry of Defence as compensation for land acquired by the Federal Government of Nigeria, but failed to properly account for the said sum to your clients all contrary to Rules 24 and 49(a) and (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession and Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 as amended by Decree 21 of 1994.”
In reaction to the charge/complaint, the appellant denied acting for the petitioner in the transaction or collecting any money for the petitioner or receiving the sum of N47,543,754.75 for Ibaka Community from the Ministry of Defence but admitted collecting the sum of N23,646,974.52 for the said community, which sum, appellant contended he paid over to the community after deducting his professional fee.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent found the appellant liable for infamous conduct and consequently directed that his name be struck off the roll of Legal Practitioners and ordered the appellant to pay the sum of N9,500,000.00 to the petitioner being his share of the compensation paid by the Federal Ministry of Defence. The appellant is dissatisfied with the decision/direction and has consequently appealed to this Court.
The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, I. N. UMEZURIKE, SAN, in the appellant’s brief filed on 12/2/07 and adopted and relied upon at the hearing of argument in the appeal, has formulated a single issue for the determination of the appeal.
The issue is as follows:-
“Whether, having regard to the material before the Committee and the Law, the Committee was right in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant was guilty of misconduct in a professional respect and directing that the Appellant’s name be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria as well as ordering the Appellant to pay to the petitioner the sum of N9,500,000.00 (Nine million, five hundred thousand naira).”
It is the submission of Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the respondent did not prove the charge levelled against the appellant, particularly as the respondent did not prove:-
(a) that the appellant acted for the petitioner in a professional respect; –
(b) that the appellant received from the Ministry of Defence a specific amount for the petitioner, and
(c) that the said sum so collected for the petitioner was converted by the appellant.
It is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel that the respondent failed to establish the fact that the petitioner was appellant’s client as a result of which Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the appellant, relying on the case of : Tweddle vs. Atkinson (1861) 18 & S, 393; Dunlop Pnematic Tyre & CO. Ltd vs. Selfridge & Co. Ltd (1915) AC 847; Ajayi vs R.T. Briscoe (Nig) Ltd (1964) 1ALR. Comm. 315; Philip Ebhota & ors vs Plateau Investment and Property Development Co. Ltd (2006) 5WRNI 31 – 33; Chuba Ikpeazu vs A.C.B. (1965) NMLR 374, 379.
It is the further submission of Learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner lacks locus standi to petition against the appellant as the petitioner was not a client of the appellant, nor does he have sufficient interest, relying on Adesanya vs President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & anor. (1981) 1 ALLNLR (pt. 1) 1 at 35; Thomas vs The Most Rev. Olufosoye (1986) 1NWLR (pt. 18) 669 at 683 & 691.
Leave a Reply