Appeal from LPDC lies to body of benchers’ appeal c’ttee - SC
This is an appeal against the direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) of the Body of Benchers (‘the committee’ for short) which was delivered on 22nd February, 2011. Therein, the committee directed the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to strike off the name of the appellant from the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria.
It is pertinent to state the facts of the matter, briefly. On the 16th of March, 2005 the respondent addressed a complaint to the committee against the appellant, a member of legal profession. The complaint was based on a petition by one Mrs. Victoria Akinyele Aliu through her solicitors - Mike Umonnan & Co. which alleged that the appellant - “conspired with a tenant of the complainant, one Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade and forged the complainant’s signature on a lease agreement in respect of the complainant’s property situate at No. 52, Western Avenue, Surulere, Lagos with intent to deprive the complainant of the ownership of the property.”
The complaint against the appellant before committee reads as follows:
“That you Jide Aladejobi of counsel to Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade, on or about the year 2001, conspired with the said Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade to draft and execute a 10 Years Lease Agreement purportedly on behalf of Mrs. Victoria Akinyele Aliu (the petitioner) in respect of the Petitioner’s property situate at No. 52, Western Avenue, Surulere, Lagos with the intent to interfere with the petitioner’s ownership rights over the property, all contrary to Rules 24, 28 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.”
The committee considered the evidence placed before it and thereafter found the appellant culpable of infamous conduct and directed the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to strike off the name of the appellant from the roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria.
The appellant felt unhappy with the decision of the committee and has decided to appeal direct to this court. Briefs of arguments were filed and exchanged by the parties.
On 25th of April, 2013 when the appeal was heard, learned senior counsel to the appellant adopted and relied on the appellant’s brief of argument filed on 23rd May, 2011 as well as the appellant’s reply brief of argument filed on 29th June, 2011. He urged that the appeal be allowed.
Learned counsel to the respondent adopted and relied on the respondent’s brief of argument filed on 8th June, 2011. He referred to the Notice of Preliminary Objection raised by him in the brief which he moved accordingly.
The crux of the preliminary objection relates to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the appeal which the respondent feels is incompetent. Jurisdiction is very fundamental in the process of adjudication. It should be determined at the earliest opportunity. This is because if a court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the proceedings remain a nullity ab initio no matter how well conducted and decided. A defect in competence is not only intrinsic but extrinsic to the entire process of adjudication. See: Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508.
It is apt for me to pose the vital question - what then is jurisdiction? It is said to be the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Such authority of the court is controlled or circumscribed by the statute creating the court itself or it may be circumscribed by a condition precedent created by a legislation which must be fulfilled before the court can entertain the suit. It is the power and authority of a court to hear and determine a judicial proceedings and power to render particular judgment in a cause of action.
In support of the preliminary objection, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the direction of the committee dated 22nd February, 2011. He opined that the appellant’s right of appeal to the Supreme Court can only be against the direction of the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers after hearing the appellant’s appeal from the direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers.
Senior counsel to the appellant asserted that the composition of the Appeal Committee as enjoined by subsection 2 of section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act, whereby two such a direction relates, may at any time within 28 days from the date of service on him of the notice of the direction, appeal against the direction to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers established under section 12 of the Act; and the Disciplinary Committee may appear as the respondent to the appeal and, for the purpose of enabling directions to be given as to costs of the appeal and of proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee, shall be deemed to be a party thereto whether or not it appears on the hearing of the appeal.
12(1) There shall be a committee to be known as the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers (in this act referred to as ‘the Appeal Committee’) which shall be charged with the duty of hearing appeals from any direction given by the Disciplinary Committee.”
It should be noted here that the word shall is employed in section 12(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 as amended. The purport of same is not far-fetched. The word shall as employed in the law denotes obligation or a command and gives no room for discretion. It imposes a duty. A peremptory mandate is enjoined.
From a clear reading of the above reproduced section 12(1) of the Act, it is basic that there must be in place the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers which is charged with the duty of hearing appeals from any direction given by the Disciplinary Committee. It is clear to me that the appellant herein cannot appeal direct to this court against the direction handed out on 22nd February, 2011 by the disciplinary committee without first appealing to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers. It hardly needs any gainsaying that the appeal of the appellant direct in
“This court frowned at parties who tried to frog- jump the Court of Appeal by appealing direct to this court from the decision of the High Court.
members of the Association are part, renders the provision unconstitutional or null and void. He contended that such offends the principles of natural justice that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. He referred to section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Further, senior counsel observed that although the Legal Practitioners Act provides for an Appeal Committee to be established under section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, there is presently no Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers constituted to determine appeals from the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. He submitted that the Appellant could not therefore have appealed to a nonexistent Appeal Committee.
For a proper appreciation of the points canvassed by the parties; it is apt to reproduce the provisions of sections 11(7) and 12 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 as amended, thus : “11 (7) The person to whom this court without going through the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers is incompetent. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain same.
Further more, it is the law that where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for initiating court process, all remedies in the statute should be duly followed to the letter.
The law provides that the appellant should appeal to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers. He must exhaust all the remedies by filling his appeal at the Appeal Committee from where he may have a lee-way to imbue this court with jurisdiction.
Perhaps, it should be further stated that the failure of the appellant to file his appeal before the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers against the direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee before filing appeal in this court engenders incompetence which cannot be cured. This is because the condition precedent to confer jurisdiction on this court has not T been fulfilled. his court frowned at parties who tried to frog- jump the Court of Appeal by appealing direct to this court from the decision of the High Court. This court will not usurp the function of the Court of Appeal as todo sowill amount to a violation ofthe Constitution and will be null and void.
Senior counsel to the appellant had axe to grind with his surmised composition of the Appeal Committee as enjoined by subsection 2 of section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act, whereby two members of the Association are part, renders the provision unconstitutional or null and void. He contended that such offends the principles of natural justice that no man shall be a judge in his own cause.
Senior counsel to the appellant observed that there is presently no Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers constituted to determine appeals from the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. He felt that the appellant could not have appealed to a non-existent appeal committee.
There is no doubt about it that the Body of Benchers is mandated to establish an Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers to hear appeals from the directions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers. This is as dictated by the provisions of section 12 (1)and (2) of the Act as amended. If it is a fact that there is presently no Appeal Committee of the august body on ground, such a lacuna should be remedied without any undue delay so as to enable the appellant take necessary action deemed fit as dictated by the law before the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers. If I may suggest, it should be a standing committee like the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. I dare say it that the time for same is now in my humble view.
The preliminary objection is clearly meritorious. It is hereby sustained. The appeal before this court is incompetent. This court is not imbued with jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby struck out.