Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal V. Idowu (1971)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.N. 

The legal practitioner, Mr. Idowu, in this matter, after the complaint against him had been examined by an investigating panel, was summoned before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal which commenced its sitting in Lagos on 18th February, 1970, and which appeared to have completed its investigations on 9th April, 1970, when it adjourned indefinitely for judgment. From the record before us there is a judgment, but no date is recorded when it was delivered.

The charge which was referred to the Investigating Panel reads:

“By a letter dated 17th June, 1968, addressed to the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation, His Lordship the Chief Justice of Lagos State complained that suit no. LD 123/68 between chief A.L.O. Ojora and E.C.N. and eight others, which came before him for hearing on 7th and 12th June, 1968, involved the receipt of compensation money to the tune of 14,000Pounds by Mr. H.A. Hakeem Habeeb. The cheque instead of being made payable to Chief Ojora the titular head of the family was made payable to Mr. H.A. Hakeem Habeeb who made out payments to the tune of 14,000Pounds as contained in a schedule of payments filed in court. From this schedule of payments Mr. G. Idowu, a legal practitioner attached to the E.C.N. who is not a member of the Ojora family received a sum of 1,910Pounds. It is also stated in counsel’s opening address to the court that Mr. S. Olatunji, who is not a member of the Ojora family was paid a sum of 32,000 by Mr. Hakeem Habeeb, and finally that a half sister of Mr. Hakeem Habeeb received a sum of 1,500Pounds.”

After hearing the evidence, the Tribunal found against Mr. Idowu and the relevant portion of the findings reads as follows:

“In any event, we are quite satisfied, quite apart from the fact that Mr. Gilbert had died before the matter arose, that there was no plan drawn or any work done by Mr. Gilbert for which the money could have been paid to him, that there was no receipt from Mr. Gilbert and that Mr. Idowu’s conduct in entering into any arrangement with his clients’ adversaries for the payment of money to himself amounts to misconduct in a professional respect.”

In the result, Mr. Idowu was suspended from practice as a legal practitioner for a period of two years and was prohibited from making any application under section 9(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962 until the expiration of the period of his suspension.

From the order of this suspension Mr. Idowu has appealed to this court under section 7(6) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1962.

It would appear that the events which led up to this matter started in the High Court of Lagos in a civil matter between members of the Ojora Chieftaincy family. As a result of certain evidence before the court, the learned Chief Justice of the Lagos High Court who heard the case referred certain matters to the Legal Practitioners Investigating Panel. The facts are that compensation money amounting to a sum of some 14,000Pounds due to the Ojora Chieftaincy family was paid by the Electricity Corporation of Nigeria to one Hakeem Habeeb a member of the Chieftaincy family. Out of this amount Habeeb paid out some amounts to different persons including Mr. Idowu to whom a sum of 1,910Pounds was paid by cheque. The charge is that Mr. Idowu a legal practitioner, received this sum, not being a member of the Ojora family.

In arguing the appeal before us, Chief F.R.A. Williams based his grounds on two submissions which in effect are as follows:

(1) That section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act No. 33 of 1962, states in effect that the infamous conduct complained of is in professional respect, and that under the relevant section 7(1)(a), a legal practitioner cannot be punished for all misconducts, but only misconducts in any professional capacity or respect.

(2) That after the case against Idowu had been closed and he offered no evidence in his own defence, it was not competent for the Tribunal to allow two more witnesses to be called, or for the Tribunal itself to call the two witnesses to give evidence against Mr. Idowu which led to prove his guilt.

Dealing with the second submission, we observe from the portion of the judgment of the Tribunal, to which we have earlier referred, that the Tribunal did not rely only on the evidence of the two witnesses who gave evidence that Mr. Gilbert had died before the transactions which led to the charge in arriving at the guilt of Mr. Idowu. We find it necessary, however, to relate briefly the incident which led to these two witnesses being called to give evidence.

Mr. Ogundere, counsel appearing against Mr. Idowu, admitted before us that these two witnesses were in court (or outside the court) during the proceedings. They were never called to testify before the case against Mr. Idowu was closed. When the case was closed, counsel for Mr. Idowu stated he was not calling evidence and closed his case. Then the Chairman of the Tribunal said it could be of importance to ascertain the date of the death of one Mr. Gilbert, a surveyor, as that would be of great help for the Tribunal to arrive at its decision and the evidence of the date of Mr. Gilbert’s death was to be procured. Chief Akin Olugbade the junior counsel for Mr. Idowu who was then the only one appearing in the absence of Chief F.R.A. Williams thought he might be able to help.