Alleged Professional Misconduct: LPDC Dismisses Petition Against Lawyer

The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), has dismissed a petition filed against Mr. Olumayowa Owolabi, for alleged professional misconduct.

The LPDC cleared him of allegations contained in a petition by Lovely Ikponwosa Erhabor, alleging that Owolabi conducted himself “in an infamous manner”, contrary to the provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners

It was alleged that sometime in 2013, Owolabi obtained an injunction from the Federal High Court in a suit between West African Supply Vessel Service and Compact Manifold and Energy Services Limited.

However, Compact Manifold and Energy Services, had filed a stay of proceedings and an appeal at the Court of Appeal against the injunction.

While the appeal was pending, Erhabor alleged that Owolabi obtained another Mareva Injunction in respect of the same subject-matter from the vacation Judge, Justice Yunusa.

Erhabor alleged that Owolabi used the Mareva Injunction, to restrain the movement of his client’s barges, despite the

matter being on appeal.

The Respondent, whose defence team was led by Chief Ifedayo Adedipe, SAN, had pleaded not liable to the complaint.

The Committee held that, the applications for Mareva Injunction was lawful and a genuine masterstroke in countering the contrivances of the Petitioner, who had also misled the Court, that an appeal had been entered.

The Committee in its directive held that, “the disciplinary process is not for able and competent legal practitioners, who use the legal process in a lawful and proper manner”.

It found that the Petitioner who had ignited disciplinary proceedings against his colleague, should be standing trial for his brazen display of unethical strategies of frustrating and arresting the judicial process of court, through deceits and disobedience of court orders by his client, with his conspicuous and ominous approval.

The Committee held that where two Lawyers are locked in a legal combat, and one uses his knowledge of the legal processes to secure justice, no matter how irked or irritated his opponent is, the initial Lawyer’s conduct, cannot be described as infamous or a breach of the rules of professional ethics.

“Indeed, the Complainant has not been able to demonstrate to us, which of the rules of professional ethics in the 2007 Rule Book for the Ethical Conduct of Legal Practitioners, that the Respondent is alleged to have flouted.

“Indeed, we further hold that, it is not within the professional competence of the Complainant

or any Lawyer at all, to seek to suggest to the Respondent or any other legal practitioner, the appropriate remedy or legal option he should take among a series of options”, LPDC said.

The Committee noted that, in the instant case, the Complainant had suggested that the only remedy open to the Respondent on behalf of his clients, was to pursue contempt proceedings.

But, Adedipe had argued that a party to a suit cannot prescribe to the other party, how to exercise his right.

“From the foregoing, we find and hold that, the basis of the one count amended complaint, which is hinged on allegation of abuse of judicial process by the Respondent, cannot stand.

“For such allegation to stand, it must come within the confines of the definition of "abuse of processes…” LPDC said.

LPDC held that, there is abuse, where there is the institution of different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different courts, even though on different grounds, among others.

“We hold that none of the factors itemised above, have arisen in this complaint, and thinking aloud, we wonder how the Investigation Panel and or the Complainant would have navigated its way, had the Respondent filed a cross-petition.

“We must once again reiterate that, the disciplinary process is not for able and competent legal practitioners, who use the legal processes in a lawful and proper manner.

“It is for the foregoing reasons, that we find the amended complaint as described above ‘not proved’. Same is therefore, dismissed”, the LPDC held.