AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE LPDC LIES NOT DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT!

Before the Supreme Court decision in ALADEJOBI V. NIGERIA BAR ASSOCIATION (2013) LPELR-SC.121/2011, the position of the law as established in OKIKE V. LPDC (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 949) 471 was that an appeal against the direction of the Legal Practitioner Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) lies directly before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court has been found to have had a U-turn from the decision reached in OKIKE v. LPDC (supra). It would be pertinent to state herein that the Supreme Court, while presiding over OKIKE V. LPDC, had to have a construction of Section 233(1) of the Constitution to determine whether it has the jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the LPDC aside from its exclusive jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal. In the determination of the constitutional issue raised suo motu by the Supreme Court in a full panel, the wise men of the Court held that the Supreme Court could hear an appeal from the LPDC as section 233(1) of the Constitution does not in any way limit the jurisdiction of the Court. This has been the position until the sudden change in the case of ALADEJOBI  V. NIGERIA BAR ASSOCIATION (supra).

As usual and not unexpectedly, the Appellant (Aladejobi, a member of the legal profession) being dissatisfied with the findings and direction of the LPDC, appealed directly to the Supreme Court to quash the decision and findings of the LPDC (now the Respondent at the Supreme Court). After the appeal has been successfully entered and the parties have equally exchanged their briefs, the counsel for the Respondent, by the Preliminary Objection contained in their Respondent’s Brief of Argument, challenges the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the appeal, as an appeal against the decision of the Respondent (LPDC) is not expected to be channelled directly to the Supreme Court but to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers. Reliance is placed on Section 12 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1990 (as amended).

In response to the Preliminary Objection of the Respondent's counsel, the counsel for the Appellant brought and relied on the principle maintained by the same Court in OKIKE v. LPDC (supra), wherein it was stated by the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court could entertain an appeal directly emanating from the LPDC. However, the wise men of the Supreme Court outright derogated from the decision reached by the Court in OKIKE v. LPDC (supra). The apex Court wise men went further to declare the decision reached in OKIKE V. LPDC (supra) as a decision reached per incuriam.

On the strength of the above, the Court has this to say:

"On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that from the decision of this court in Okike v. LPDC (supra) appeal from the direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee lies directly to this court. I dare say it that issue of jurisdiction of this court was not remotely raised therein. The applicable sections of the law were not considered and pronounced upon in the lead judgment therein. With due diffidence, the opinion was given per incuriam and cannot stand the test of time in the face of the applicable law earlier on discussed in this judgment." — JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.S.C.

Unanimously, while upholding the Preliminary Objection, the learned Supreme Court justices held 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 been fulfilled. The notorious case of MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (supra) at page 594 was cited in support.

On the face of it, it seems the issue regarding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal directly emanating from the LPDC was finalized in ALADEJOBI V. NIGERIA BAR ASSOCIATION (supra). However, the response is to the contrary.

While we continue to bring vital legal tidbits to your attention, you can quench your thirst by having a look at one of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject matter: ROTIMI WILLIAMS AKINTOKUN V. LPDC (2014) LPELR 22941 (SC).

 

 

By:

Qosim Muhibudeen A.

(Deputy Chief Registrar, Solace Chambers — BUK).