A Lagos-based lawyer, Lawrence Nnoli, has approached the Federal High Court in Lagos, with an application seeking to compel the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), to appoint more Supreme Court Justices without further delay.

The Nigerian constitution provides for 21 Supreme Court Justices but following successive retirement of the justices without corresponding replacement, the number has overtime dwindled to 12 while the number of appeals going to the court from all over the country keeps increasing.

In his suit before Justice Mohammed Liman, Nnoli said Buhari’s failure to appoint more Supreme Court Justice was “a serious breach of Section 231(2) of the 1999 Constitution and poses a grave danger to the course of justice in Nigeria.”

The lawyer told the court that the National Judicial Council had since October last year recommended four justices of the Court of Appeal to Buhari for appointment as Supreme Court Justices, but the President refused to forward their names to the National Assembly.

He identified the recommended justices as Adamu Jauro, Emmanuel Agim, C. Oseji and Helen Ogunwumiju.

According to Nnoli, Buhari is shirking his statutory duties and his inaction “poses a grave risk to the peace and progress of Nigeria as citizens’ confidence in the Supreme Court towards dispensing justice in a timely manner may be eroded owing to the insufficient number of Justices of the Supreme Court available.”

The defendants in the suit marked FHC/C/CS/897/2020 are Buhari, the National Judicial Council, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, and the Senate President.

The court has yet to fix a date for hearing.

(Punch)

Olumide Babalola, a legal practitioner, has commenced four different suits against the “Big 4’ – KPMG, PWC, Ernst & Young and Deloitte & Touche for offering legal advisory services in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners. In Suit Nos. FHC/AB/CS/69/20, FHC/AB/CS/70/20, FHC/AB/CS/71/20 and FHC/AB/CS/72/20, filed on his behalf by the duo of Abdulwasiu Esuola and Chukwudi Ajaegbo, the Plaintiff is seeking the following similar reliefs:

1. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the combined provisions of section 150 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and section 1(1) and (2)(a) of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), the 2nd Defendant, as the President of General Council of the Bar is duty-bound to take action to ascertain compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct made pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act.
2. A DECLARATION that by virtue of rule 8(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners made pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act, legal practitioners under salaried employment in the 1st Defendant cannot prepare, sign, or frank pleadings, applications, instruments, agreements, contracts, deed, letters, memorandums, report, legal advisory/opinions or similar instruments or process or file any such document for their employers and/or their employer’s customers.
3. A DECLARATION that by virtue of rule 8 (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, any pleadings, applications, instruments, agreements, contracts, deeds, letters, memorandums, report, legal advisory/opinions or similar instruments, report, or process, prepared and/or signed by a legal practitioner under the 1st Defendant’s salaried employment for his employers and/or employer’s customers are invalid, null and void.
4. A DECLARATION that by virtue of rule 8 (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, the preparation and/or signing of pleadings, applications, instruments, agreements, contracts, deeds, letters, memorandums, report, legal advisory/opinions or similar instruments, report, or process, or the filing of any such document by a legal practitioner in salaried employment for his employers or employer’s customers constitute professional misconduct.
5. A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant’s advertisement published on their website with respect to provision of legal advisory services violates the provision of rule 39 (2) (b) and (3) (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners.
6. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Defendant’s employees who are legal practitioners from further preparing and/or signing of pleadings, applications, instruments, agreements, contracts, deeds, letters, memorandums, report, legal advisory/opinions or similar instruments, report, or process for their employers and/or employers’ customers and/or advertising same in the media or any other platform.

By his originating summons dated July 19, 2020, the Plaintiff distilled the following questions for determination:

i. Whether or not by the interpretation of section 150 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and section 1(1) and (2)(a) of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), the 2nd Defendant, as the President of General Council of the Bar, is duty-bound to take action to ascertain that the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners are complied with?

ii. Whether or not by the interpretation of rule 8(2) and (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, the 1st Defendant’s lawyers in salaried employment can prepare, sign, or frank pleadings, applications, instrument, agreement, contract, deed, letters, memorandum, report, legal advisory/opinions or similar instruments or process or file any such document for their employers and/or their employer’s customers?

iii. Whether or not by the interpretation of rule 39 (2) (b) and (3) (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, the 1st Defendant’s advertisement published on its website, with respect to provision of legal advisory/opinions and services violate the said provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners?

iv. Whether or not by the interpretation of rule 55(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, the provision of legal advisory/opinions by lawyers under the 1st Defendant’s salaried employment constitutes professional misconduct punishable under the Legal Practitioners Act, LFN 2010?

The matter is yet to be assigned to any judge in the division as at press time.

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria sitting in Benin has refused the application for summary judgment filed by Prince Edobor Izebhigie in a matter brought against Igueben Local Government for lacking merit, granted the Local Government leave to defend the case in the interest of justice.

The Court held that Igueben Local Government has disclosed a triable issue to warrant a proper trial in the suit.

The claimant, Prince Edobor counsel Dickson I. Egbewuare Esq had filed a motion on notice for summary judgment brought pursuant to the Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, argued that there is no dispute about the indebtedness of the Igueben Local Govt to the claimant and submitted that there are cogent facts before the court that warrants entering summary judgment in favour of the claimant

The Defendant counsel S. I. Aibangbe Esq., argued that claimant has to prove how he arrived at the sums he is claiming and can only be done during trial, added that the court must be afforded the opportunity to consider the totality of evidence and decide same on merit. He submitted that the suit has been effectively terminated by the Notice of Discontinuance filed by the claimant that the Court lack Jurisdiction to try the matter.

The claimant’s counsel Dickson I. Egbewuare Esq submitted that the Notice of Discontinuance has been withdrawn that the defendant is only trying to delay and waste the court’s time and urged the court to enter summary judgment in favour of the claimant.

In the judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Adewemimo held that a Notice of Discontinuance ordinarily effectively terminates a suit upon the filing of the notice, that the system or procedure for withdrawing an action differs and depends on the stage of the proceeding as provided in the Rules of Court.

“It is, therefore, an incompetent process which cannot ordinarily terminate the claimant’s suit, more so, same was withdrawn by the claimant’s counsel in this suit. It is in view of the above that the Defendant/Respondent’s objection is overruled in this regard, I so hold.

“It is in light of this and consideration of the fact that the defendant has filed all necessary processes, i.e. pleadings having been exchanged in this suit, that I am satisfied that the defendant has disclosed a triable issue to warrant a proper trial in this suit.”