Savannah Bank Of Nigeria Plc V. Oladipo Opanubi (2004)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWAIFO, J.S.C. 

The plaintiff (now respondent), a legal practitioner, was instructed by the defendant (now appellant) to recover from ICON Limited (Merchant Bankers) – hereinafter called the company – its total indebtedness to the defendant. The plaintiff, in pursuance of the said instructions, instituted an action at the Federal High Court on behalf of the defendant against the company for the sum of N99,394,682.82 owed by the company as at 28 April, 1994. Also claimed was interest on the said sum of 21% per annum from 28 April, 1994 until judgment.

On 3 March, 1995, judgment was obtained against the company in terms of the claim. The company paid N50,000,000.00 out of the judgment debt. From the pleadings of the parties in the present suit [para. 15 of statement of claim and para. 10 of the statement of defence] the plaintiff was to be paid 10% of the money actually recovered from the company. The plaintiff got N5,000,000.00 being 10% of the N50,000,000.00. Thereafter the defendant by letter dated 23 February, 1996, withdrew its brief from the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff brought this action.

In his statement of claim, para. 26, referring to the said letter of 23 February, 1996, the plaintiff averred:

“The plaintiff replied the defendant and demanded his fees for legal work rendered by him, up to delivery of judgment, on the balance of N49,399,689.82 (sic) and interest, on the judgment debt of N99,399,689.82. (sic) Both the letter and bill of charges dated 19th March, 1996 shall be relied upon at the trial of this suit.”

From the above, the plaintiff appeared minded to claim on a quantum meruit for the legal work rendered by him up to judgment in regard to the balance of N49,394,689.82 out of the judgment debt of N99,394,689.82 along with interest on N99,394,689.82. However, the reliefs finally claimed by him against the defendant were stated thus:

“1. The sum of N7,545,401.50 being the plaintiffs fees on quantum meruit, for legal work rendered by the plaintiff, on the instructions of the defendant, up to judgment debt of N99.394.689.82 against ICON Limited (Merchant Bankers) in favour of the defendant and

(b) on the award of interest on the said sum of N99,394.689.82 at the rate of 21% per annum from 28th April, 1994 up to 8th March, 1996 when the brief was withdrawn from the plaintiff by the defendant.

2. Interest on the sum of N7,545,401.50 at the rate of 21 % per annum from the 1st day of May, 1996 until final liquidation of the judgment debt.
3. General damages of N2,000,000.00”

On 14 November, 1997, the court presided over by Adeniyi, J. dismissed the action. The reason given was that “A claim on quantum meruit cannot even arise where there is an existing contract for the payment of an agreed sum …. The intention here is clear, that payment of fees would be based on percentage of actual amount recovered, so issue of payment of fee on quantum meruit, fails.”

The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division reversed the learned trial Judge in a judgment delivered by it on 31 May, 1999.

First it said:

“There is no doubt that the plaintiff did not recover the balance of N49,394,689.82 from ICON Ltd. There is also no doubt that the plaintiff had employed his professional services in prosecuting the defendant’s claim for N99,394,689.82 up to the stage of judgment. On 23/2/96, the defendant vide exhibit ‘F’ withdrew the brief from the plaintiff. The plaintiff was thus disabled from recovering the balance of N49,3394,689.82 . There was no reason to think that the plaintiff would not recover, the balance had not the defendant by exhibit ‘F’ withdrawn the brief.”

Then later, it said:

“The defendant had not in exhibit ‘F’ attempted to justify in any sensible manner its decision to de-brief the plaintiff Were the services of the plaintiff to the defendant in pursuing the matter up to the stage of judgment to be had free in respect of the balance N49,394,689.82This question is pertinent since by the agreement of the parties, the plaintiff was only to be paid his 10% fee in respect of the money actually recovered. No provision had been made for the situation that arose where one of the parties brought the contract to an end before its purpose was fully realised.”